The first section is divided into two chapters: the first chapter on the formation of the Control and Investigation Board, stipulates in the first article the establishment of this board and to ensure its independence and efficiency, it required that its president be of no less than the fifteenth rank, which is the highest rank of public positions organized by the general staff cadre. Therefore, it left the door open - when necessary - for someone of a rank higher than that to preside over this board. The same concept was applied to the deputies, and the appointment of the president and deputies and the termination of their services is by royal order Article (3).

In order to ensure the efficient performance of the Authority's responsibilities, Article (3) divides the bodies that constitute the Authority into two sections: the Control Section and the Investigation Section. This allows each section to focus on its duties with the desired efficiency and specialization. However, this does not mean that the two sections are independent of each other, as they are interconnected bodies forming a single Authority under one leadership that coordinates their work and supervises their efforts.

As for the second chapter, it discusses the competencies of the authority and the procedures it follows. To avoid misunderstanding the purpose of granting the authority jurisdiction over supervision and investigation, Article (5) has restricted these competencies to the limits of the rules stipulated in this law. It is not an absolute supervision without any restriction nor an investigation without limits, but rather supervision and investigation within the scope outlined by the law. It is worth mentioning here that paragraph (A) of Article (5), when it spoke about financial and administrative violations, intended for this expression to be understood in its broadest sense to include all violations committed by the employee in his capacity as an employee. Thus, an employee's neglect in performing job duties can fall under this concept. The law has consistently used this broad concept of expression in all its provisions, which should be taken into consideration when interpreting and applying the other provisions of the law.

Although the law has considered brevity in procedural rules, leaving details to the regulations issued in application of the provisions of Article Three, it has deemed it necessary to include some fundamental rules to ensure that the freedom of the employee is not compromised except in accordance with proper principles and legal provisions. Thus, Article (6) stipulates the necessity of documenting all oversight procedures in writing, which is also required in Article (11) concerning investigations. The law also deemed that the administrative agency to which the employee belongs should be informed in advance of any procedures taken against him, as a form of coordination between jurisdictions and to ensure good cooperation between administrative agencies and the authority, and to provide necessary assistance. This is stipulated in Article (7). It is expected that administrative agencies, upon notification by the authority, will facilitate the authority's mission and assist in the procedures it undertakes, and not prevent the investigator from accessing or inspecting unless they have serious and justified reasons to do so. In such cases, the decision falls under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, who will order what he deems appropriate as stated in Article (8).

It is clear that the law distinguishes between the inspection of workplaces, i.e., the places where the employee works and which are associated with the administrative agency he works for, and the inspection of private places and individuals. It grants the authority the power to conduct the first type of inspection and requires in the second case that the inspection be conducted by the competent authority in accordance with the laws in force in the Kingdom. It goes without saying that the request of the head of the authority to the competent authority to conduct the inspection (Article 9) is not considered an order to the mentioned competent authority. However, it is expected that the competent authority will not refrain from responding to this request unless there is a clear legal impediment justifying this abstention. The law does not address the procedure to be followed in the event of such a disagreement between the authority and the competent authority because the law is specific to disciplining employees and does not fall within its scope to stipulate mandatory provisions for security agencies. Based on the public interest that everyone aims to achieve, it is expected to significantly reduce the occurrence of such disagreements, and if it occurs, the responsible parties in the authority can, through mutual agreement, reach a solution or refer the matter to the ruler.

Among the guarantees established by the law is that the investigation is conducted in the presence of the person being investigated, making this the rule and the exception is the absence. One of the fundamental principles is that the exception is only resorted to when necessary and should not be broadly applied. Article (12) stipulates that the investigation is to be submitted to the head of the authority to take what he deems consistent with the law regarding it, but it restricts this authority by the necessity of referring the investigation to the competent authority for adjudication if it is found to involve a criminal offense. This means that the administrative action regarding the acts attributed to the employee will be announced until the criminal adjudication of those acts is completed, all in consideration of what Article (12) of the law has ruled.

Article (13) allows the President of the Authority to propose to the Council of Ministers, after consulting the competent Minister, the dismissal of an employee for strong suspicions that make him unfit to continue in the position. This addresses cases where it is better to take such action without engaging in trial procedures. It is known that the President of the Authority will exercise this authority through the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.

The second section, which also addresses the Disciplinary Board, is divided into two chapters. The first chapter deals with the formation of the Disciplinary Board, and the law in Article (14) stipulates the establishment of the board, emphasizing that its President and Vice President should be senior officials, similar to the President of the Investigation Board and his agents. The concept of the article is that if the President of the board is absent, the Vice President automatically assumes his duties and powers during the period of absence. Therefore, the article refers to the Vice President as the Vice President, while the counterpart in the Investigation Board is called the agent.

Article (16) stipulates that the Authority shall issue internal regulations, and the law leaves it to these regulations to include any rules and procedures that the Authority deems necessary to regulate, which are not specifically addressed in the law. Therefore, the expression 'internal regulations' in the context of Article (16) should be understood in this sense.