On the other hand, there is a danger that as soon as the state provides a kind of comprehensive insurance to the public servant, the public servants will abuse the citizens and say: What do we care, we are protected anyway. We will harass the citizen, we will cause him damage, and in any case, the state will be the one to go to court.
The committee sat and confronted this bill that the government had initiated, because the government had brought a bill that was intended to protect public servants above what we thought was appropriate. We said: to protect public servants - yes, but not in cases where that public servant acted arbitrarily, with equanimity, regarding the damages he could cause.
(D.C. 199, 9922 (2005); and see also Yitzhak Zamir Administrative Authority I 640-639 (2nd ed., 2010))
In order to balance, as MK Eitan said, between the proper purpose underlying the granting of immunity to a public servant and the concern that arises on the other hand of deterring the employee's deficiency and imposing a large and unjustified burden on the public purse in this context, the immunity was classified and it was determined that it does not apply in those cases where it is not an act of wrongdoing that was done "in the performance of the governmental function" of the public servant or in cases in which the public servant acted "knowingly with the intention of causing damage or with the intention of causing it with the possibility of causing it."Section 7A(a) to the Ordinance). Additional Balance Measures Established In Section 7F to the Ordinance, which we have already discussed above, according to which the State and the public authority were given the right to demand compensation and indemnification from the employee in cases where he acted "in a serious deviation from the proper conduct of a public servant", even if the State or the public authority, as the case may be, believed that in the relationship between the injured party and the public servant, it is appropriate to grant the employee immunity.