"I Didn't Want Island Duty"... Civil Servant Who Ordered Proxy Overtime Signatures to Pocket Allowances

Filed lawsuit to overturn demotion but lost
Court: "Strict disciplinary action is necessary"

Image to aid understanding of the article. The Asia Business Daily database

A civil servant who instructed his subordinates to forge signatures to make it appear he had worked overtime, and then pocketed the corresponding allowances, filed a lawsuit challenging a heavy disciplinary sanction but lost.

According to Yonhap News on the 24th, the 1-2 Administrative Division of the Incheon District Court, presided over by Senior Judge Kim Wonmok, dismissed a lawsuit filed by civil servant A seeking to overturn a demotion imposed by a certain office of education.

An audit by the office of education found that A, who was working at a school in an island area, instructed two subordinates to sign on his behalf in his overtime verification log. In 2023 alone, there were 49 instances of proxy signatures carried out on his instructions.

Through this, A was found to have unjustly received overtime work allowances and other payments totaling approximately 2.37 million won, corresponding to 189 hours of overtime, and in August 2024 he was given a heavy disciplinary sanction in the form of a demotion.

It was revealed that he told his staff, "It is unfair that I was assigned to an island, so we have to make up (the allowances) at least in this way," as he directed them to sign on his behalf. When an audit by the education authorities began at the time, A also asked his staff to make false statements, telling them to say that they had "voluntarily signed on his behalf."

He also received allowances related to his parents by submitting a resident registration certificate and a family relationship certificate listing his parents together with him, even though he did not live with them. In addition, it was revealed that he made demeaning remarks to a subordinate for more than 40 minutes on the grounds of poor work performance, and that he engaged in behavior in public places implying possible personnel disadvantages.

During the trial, A argued that "I actually worked overtime, and there was only a procedural flaw in the form of proxy signatures," but the court did not accept this claim.

The court stated, "The plaintiff's conduct constitutes a violation of the duty of diligence and of maintaining dignity, and is more than sufficient to be recognized as grounds for disciplinary action," adding, "The plaintiff was the manager in charge of the overtime work log, yet he voluntarily violated the guidelines and fostered an improper perception of public service among his subordinates."

The court went on to say, "There is a need to impose strict disciplinary measures on acts that violate local public officials' duty to comply with laws and regulations in order to realize a clean public service," and added, "Such public interest is by no means smaller than the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff."