151 officials dismissed following public appeals...

In Uzbekistan, shortcomings in handling public appeals are resulting in severe measures against officials. Between January and August 2026, 5,486 documents regarding shortcomings in handling citizen appeals were submitted to state organizations. As a result, 151 individuals were dismissed from their positions, and thousands of other employees faced disciplinary and administrative measures.

Looking at the figures, it is clear this is not just about accepting appeals. The issue comes down to reviewing a citizen's problem, providing them with a legal and timely response, and holding officials accountable in the process. This was reported by the President's People's Receptions.

5,486 documents: Serious shortcomings identified in handling appeals

In the first eight months of 2026, 5,486 documents regarding shortcomings in handling public appeals were submitted to state organizations.

Following these documents, various levels of measures were taken against responsible employees.

The most severe measure was the dismissal of 151 individuals.

In addition:

Therefore, measures ranging from warnings to dismissals were applied for shortcomings in working with appeals.

In which areas are there the most problems?

According to data, the shortcomings are not limited to a single sector.

In particular, they were most frequently identified in:

• employment;

• mahalla;

• Compulsory Enforcement Bureau (CEB);

• healthcare;

• prosecution;

• social protection;

• energy

systems.

All of these sectors are directly connected to the daily lives of the population.

For instance, issues related to employment, social benefits, medical services, utilities, or the enforcement of court documents are not just ordinary administrative procedures for citizens.

Therefore, the importance of providing timely and meaningful responses to appeals in these sectors is even higher.

Why are mistakes in handling appeals a serious issue?

When a citizen applies to a state body, there is usually a specific problem behind it.

This could be unemployment, social assistance, medical services, electricity, housing, documents, debt, or another matter.

If an appeal is simply registered and the problem itself is not resolved, the result for the citizen remains unchanged.

From this perspective, the main criterion in the state agency appeal handling system should not just be "how many appeals were reviewed?" but rather "how many problems were resolved?"

What does the dismissal of 151 people indicate?

The dismissal of 151 individuals between January and August is one of the sharpest indicators.

This figure does not mean that every single case had the exact same cause. However, it shows that shortcomings in handling public appeals are, in some cases, leading officials to part ways with their positions.

Furthermore, 833 employees received reprimands, 150 were held administratively liable, and 89 were fined.

Another 8 were demoted, and 1,335 were formally warned.

Consequently, measures of accountability regarding appeal handling within the system are being applied across multiple stages.

The biggest number — the count of warned individuals

The largest indicator on the list is 1,335 people who were formally warned. This is nearly nine times the number of dismissed individuals.

Additionally, those who received reprimands amounted to 833 people. This demonstrates that a portion of the shortcomings identified in handling appeals are being evaluated with severe disciplinary measures.

An appeal is not just a complaint

It is incorrect to accept public appeals solely as complaint statistics. Through appeals, state bodies can also see which problems occur most frequently in a region.

If numerous appeals regarding power supply come from a single region, this may be a systemic issue rather than just individual citizens' problems.

If employment appeals increase, it may indicate certain problems in the labor market.

If complaints regarding social protection or medical services are recurring, the need arises to review service delivery mechanisms.

Therefore, handling appeals also serves as a feedback mechanism in state governance.

The main goal is not punishment, but eliminating the root of the problem

The dismissal of 151 officials is a figure that draws public attention.

However, from the standpoint of state governance, the most important outcome is not the number of punished individuals. The primary result is that the citizen's problem has been resolved.

If an official is punished, but the responsible person who takes their place repeats the exact same mistake, the problem will not be solved.

Therefore, analyzing shortcomings in handling appeals, identifying the reasons for their recurrence, and introducing systemic solutions is crucial.

A new criterion in handling appeals is taking shape in 2026

The figures for January–August show that state bodies' attitudes toward public appeals are becoming increasingly serious.

5,486 documents, 151 dismissed, 833 reprimanded, 150 held administratively liable, 1,335 formally warned.

Behind each of these figures lies a specific appeal and a specific management decision.

Now the most important issue is how effective these measures are.

Because for a citizen, after applying to a state institution, what matters is not that the official was punished, but that their problem was resolved.

In this sense, the statistics cited by the President's People's Receptions indicate yet another important criterion for state bodies:

Accepting an appeal is the beginning of the task. Solving the problem is its true result.