"Inappropriate Conduct Damaging the Dignity of a Public Official"
A public official who operated a jokbal (pig's trotters) restaurant under his wife's name filed an administrative lawsuit claiming unfairness after being disciplined, but lost the case.
On the 14th, the Administrative Division 2 of the Incheon District Court (Presiding Judge Song Jong-seon) ruled against Mr. A, a public official at a public institution under the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of a reprimand disciplinary action filed against the institution head.
Mr. A was caught on March 11 last year operating a jokbal restaurant under his wife's name. It was also found that before taking over the restaurant, he worked part-time for four months without permission for concurrent employment, and that he sometimes slept in the duty room of his affiliated institution late at night after business hours.
As a result, Mr. A was reprimanded by the disciplinary committee of the institution for violating the duty to maintain dignity and the prohibition on profit-making activities and concurrent employment. Under the National Public Service Act, disciplinary actions for public officials are divided into severe punishments such as dismissal, removal, demotion, suspension, and lighter punishments such as salary reduction and reprimand, with reprimand being the lowest level of discipline.
However, Mr. A appealed the disciplinary action by requesting a review from the Personnel Innovation Agency's Appeal Review Committee. After the appeal was dismissed, he filed an administrative lawsuit last October claiming unfairness. Mr. A argued that the inspection officers did not notify him of their identity and purpose during the on-site investigation and forced him to sign a confirmation, making the disciplinary procedure illegal.
Mr. A requested cancellation of the disciplinary action, stating, "I only partially helped with the restaurant that my wife took over from an acquaintance and did not actually operate it," and "I did not work for profit before my wife took over the restaurant." He also emphasized, "I operated the restaurant for livelihood, and the period I worked part-time was not long," and "I have faithfully performed my duties as a public official, and imposing discipline is an abuse of discretion and illegal."
However, the court did not accept Mr. A's claims. The court explained, "It appears that the plaintiff substantially operated the restaurant and engaged in profit-making activities," and "As a public official, the plaintiff engaged in inappropriate conduct that damaged the dignity of a public official by engaging in profit-making activities without permission."
The court further stated, "The defendant's purpose of establishing public service discipline through the disciplinary action is legitimate," and "Imposing the lightest disciplinary action of reprimand on the plaintiff did not deviate from the relevant standards," explaining the reason for the ruling.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
