<p>This article aims to show the difference that must exist in the legal consequences of the conduct done by a public official or former official in the processing of repetition actions, since the legislator despite establishing a divergence between willful misconduct and gross negligence, did not establish a differentiated sentence for the state agent.Within the research process a mixed method was used, on one hand it was sought to determine the dogmatic of the action of repetition working documentarily the existing literature and the legal rules applicable to later compare it with the reality of the processes repetition carried out in administrative courts of the city of Tunja, in the period between 2009 and the first half of 2012.</p>