(Act dated 17 December 2012, No. 307 of the People's Government Order No. 307 of the Zangi Province, which came into force on 1 February 2013)

Chapter I General

Article I, in order to strengthen administrative law enforcement oversight, prevent and redress the misperceptions of administrative law enforcement, establishes this approach in line with the laws, regulations and regulations of the National People's Republic of China's Administrative Monitoring Act, the Civil Service Act of the People's Republic of China, the Administrative Enforcement Monitoring Regulations of the People's Government of the Republic of Zang Province.

Article 2, this approach applies to administrative law enforcement agencies and their staff working in the province.

This approach refers to administrative law enforcement agencies, including those at all levels of the people's Government, the work sector with executive law enforcement powers, organizations authorized by law or commissioned administrative law enforcement functions.

The administrative law enforcement activities described in this approach include administrative penalties, administrative licences, administrative enforcement, administrative decisions, administrative recognition, administrative payments, administrative charges, administrative charges, and other administrative enforcement activities under the laws, regulations and regulations.

Article 3. The principle that administrative law enforcement should be held accountable should uphold the principles of integrity, objectivity and impartiality, education and corrections.

Article IV. Administrative law enforcement agencies should establish sound administrative law enforcement responsibilities, regulate administrative law enforcement activities, strengthen education training and monitoring inspections and, in accordance with the provisions of the law, evaluate the conduct of inspections.

Chapter II

Article 5 Administrative law enforcement agencies and their staff, in administrative law enforcement activities, have the following non-performance of statutory responsibilities, resulting in the consequences or adverse impacts, and should be held accountable for the misperception of administrative law enforcement (hereinafter referred to as misperception):

(i) Complaints, reports, complaints, complaints, complaints, prosecution and prosecution of citizens, legal persons or other organizations;

(ii) The application for compliance with the statutory conditions is not subject to a licence, approval;

(iii) Failure to perform administrative oversight functions, such as inspection, testing, monitoring, as prescribed;

(iv) Other cases of renunciation, precipitation, delay and refusal to perform statutory duties.

Article 6. Administrative law enforcement agencies and their staff should be held accountable in administrative law enforcement activities where they are not properly performing their statutory duties, causing the consequences or adverse impacts.

(i) To go beyond its mandate;

(ii) Violations of statutory procedures;

(iii) There is no legal basis or the application of error;

(iv) The underlying facts determine that the main evidence is inadequate;

(v) The intentional harassment, the choice of law enforcement, the abuse of discretion, the apparent misappropriation of administrative law or the apparent injustice of administrative law enforcement;

(vi) The way in which administrative law enforcement is clear;

(vii) Other circumstances in which administrative law enforcement authority, conditions, procedures, time limits or modalities are violated by law, regulations and regulations.

Article 7.

The accountability of administrative law enforcement authorities should be held at the same time to hold the wrong responsibility of those responsible.

Chapter III Types and application of accountability

Article 8

(i) A written inspection order;

(ii) To inform criticism;

(iii) The suspension or distribution of administrative law enforcement documents;

(iv) Removal of administrative law enforcement positions;

(v) Removal from office;

(vi) Exclusion;

(vii) Removal;

(viii) Other types of national, provincial provisions.

The categories set out in the preceding paragraph apply to cases where the responsible person has been held wrongly accountable; the first, second and third types of provisions apply to cases where the administrative law enforcement agencies are held accountable.

Article 9. The wrongful conduct of the administrative law of the responsible person (hereinafter referred to as a misperceptive act) is relatively minor, subject to a written examination or notification of criticism; in the light of the gravity of the circumstances, the suspension or payment of administrative law enforcement documents, the removal of administrative law enforcement posts, which can be accompanied by a written examination or notification of criticism; in the event of a serious loss or serious social impact, no longer suited to serving in the administration of justice, the dismissal, dismissal or dismissal of the other types of responsibility applicable to article 8.

The accountability of administrative law enforcement authorities has been erroneous and is subject to a written examination; the circumstances of the wrongdoing are serious and are criticized in writing.

Article 10: Administrative law enforcement agencies and their staff have one of the following cases and should be held accountable for error:

(i) Removal and concealing facts;

(ii) Disturbing, impeding, resisting accountability for the wrongdoing of them;

(iii) Counter reprisals against complainants, reportingers and the complainant;

(iv) The same staff member experienced more than two lapses over a year;

(v) Inadequate management and oversight within administrative law enforcement agencies, significant violations of administrative law enforcement, incidents or major accidents resulting from failure to perform administrative law enforcement duties in a short period of time, causing serious loss or adverse effects;

(vi) Other cases in which wrong responsibility should be prosecuted under the law.

Article 11. Administrative law enforcement agencies and their staff are able to proactively report wrongdoing in a timely manner and take measures to effectively avoid loss or recover the impact, and should be held wrongly or mitigated.

The wrongdoing circumstance is minor, and the post-critical changes can be exempted from accountability.

Article 12 states that:

(i) Failure to perform the statutory duties in a normal manner owing to factors such as force majeure or emergency avoidance;

(ii) Inadequate administrative law enforcement based on unambiguous or inconsistent understanding of the facts and the basis for them, resulting in a bias in administrative law enforcement;

(iii) The relative misappropriation of administrative administration, which makes it difficult for administrative law enforcement agencies and their staff to make the right judgement;

(iv) Other cases where there is no responsibility for error under the law.

Article 13. Administrative law enforcement bodies and their staff members who have been held accountable for error have removed their annual appraisal strength and the selection of various types of advanced qualifications.

Decides that the person responsible shall be dismissed from his or her duties or shall, in accordance with the relevant provisions, arrange the appropriate place of office or the corresponding tasks, and that the responsible person shall not be re-elected for a period of one year with his or her original office, and shall seek the views of the relevant departments at the level in accordance with the relevant provisions of the leadership accountability.

Article 14. The accountability of administrative law enforcement agencies and their staff is accompanied by the need for disciplinary accountability for those responsible, and shall be disposed of in accordance with the relevant laws, regulations, regulations and procedures. There was no responsibility to be held in lieu of disposal.

Chapter IV Accountability procedures

Article 15. Competence of executive law enforcement authorities to investigate, make decisions by executive law enforcement authorities at the superior level; accountability for those responsible and to investigate and make decisions in accordance with the authority.

The responsible organs are vested with accountability.

Article 16 performs administrative inspection duties in accordance with the law and advises the responsible prosecution bodies on the inspection recommendations that are responsible for error.

In the process of receiving complaints reports, administrative review, administrative proceedings, or in administrative law enforcement supervision, audit and handling of major accidents, incidents, cases, cases, etc., relevant executive law enforcement agencies and their staff have been found to be wrong and have the right to submit recommendations to the responsible organs for accountability for error.

In accordance with the requirements of the investigation, the responsible organs may communicate information and queries to the relevant administrative law enforcement agencies and relevant units, personnel.

In cases where the investigation does not require accountability, the accountability authority should withdraw the case and inform the investigation units, personnel and the relevant units that have made recommendations for accountability.

The case of the investigation should be closed within three months from the date of the submission; for special reasons, the duration of the case should be extended, with the approval of the holder responsible for the prosecution, with a maximum of six months.

Article 18 Accountability organs should communicate the investigation and the basis for the proposed error of responsibility to the investigation units, personnel and to fully listen to the facts, evidence, reasons and reasons presented by the investigation and should be adopted.

Upon enquiry and the determination that the responsible organ decides to hold accountable to the investigation units, persons who have been wrongly held, shall make a written decision containing basic matters such as the facts of the investigation, the types of accountability and the basis, the decision body, the time of entry into force, the right of the responsible person to apply for review or the right to lodge a complaint, and shall transmit them to the administrative law enforcement organs, the responsible person, and respond in writing to the relevant units that have made recommendations for accountability.

Article 19 Competent persons may apply for re-entry or the filing of a complaint in the light of the Civil Service Act of the People's Republic of China, the National People's Republic of China Administrative Monitoring Act relating to non-consensual disposal.

Chapter V

Article 20 is suspected of committing crimes and is transferred to the judiciary by law.

It should be held accountable to the responsible person and transferred to the disciplinary inspectorate by law.

Article 21, this approach is implemented effective 1 February 2013.