7a. (a) No action shall be filed against a public servant for an act he committed while fulfilling his governmental function as a public servant, which establishes liability in torts; This provision shall not apply to such an act that was done knowingly with the intention of causing harm or with the possibility of causing it by such an act.
From the If the legislature has substantially distinguished between the two types of employees, one should strive for a uniform result that does not distinguish between the two. I will note that the substantive right to compensation and indemnity, which is also prescribed In Section 7F The Ordinance does not distinguish between civil servants and employees of a public authority.
The Legislature's Intention: This is reflected in the explanatory notes to the law, according to which "The nature of the audit in this proceeding, even though it is conducted in the framework of a tort claim, will be administrative in nature" (Explanatory Notes to the Amendment Bill The Torts Ordinance (No. 10) (Warranty)
Public Servants), 5763-2002, Government Bill 6, 137). The bill's proponents did not distinguish between criticism relating to state employees and criticism relating to employees of public authorities, and in the explanatory notes relating to section 7C of the Ordinance, the legislature refers to the explanatory notes given to section 7B of the Ordinance (ibid., at p. 139).
Language of the LawIf the legislature had sought to apply different rules of substance for the purpose of judicial review, it would have been expected that with regard to the immunity of state employees, the court would be required to determine whether the state's notice was lawfully given. However, the language used by the legislature In Sections 7B and7C The law is identical, and in both cases the court is required to determine Whether or not the immunity conditions are met.
The Deliberative Way: They are according to Section 7B(e) to the law (regarding a civil servant) and according to Section 7C(c) According to the law (regarding an employee of a public authority), the court is required to decide Improvise If the immunity conditions are met.