감봉 2월처분 취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 1, 1995, the Plaintiff was appointed as an administrative assistant (Grade 9), and then promoted to administrative assistant (Grade 6) on October 17, 2006. From October 1, 2013 to March 24, 2019, the Plaintiff is a state public official who served in B Center under the Ministry of Health and Welfare (former C Hospital; hereinafter “the Center”).
B. On April 12, 2019, the Public Health and Welfare Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter “Public Health and Welfare Disciplinary Committee”) provided D with dancing to the Plaintiff on May 31, 2018 with respect to the Plaintiff at the entrance of the colonial house.
The plaintiff's act was decided on the disciplinary action of February of salary reduction on the ground of "the act of violating the duty of maintaining dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act."
On April 19, 2019, the Defendant took a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff for February of salary reduction (hereinafter “instant salary reduction measure”) in accordance with the above resolution.
(c)
The Plaintiff filed an appeal review seeking revocation of the instant salary reduction disposition with the personnel innovation review committee, but the said committee rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 18, 2019.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the salary reduction disposition of this case is legitimate
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff and D had no ground for disciplinary action jointly worked at the center of this case and D had moved to the medical management team, and D would have been working at the general department after move.
At the same time, he participated in the meeting of the general affairs department.
On May 31, 2018, the Plaintiff returned home after having d and the staff of the department of general affairs and meals. According to D’s proposal, the Plaintiff d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
Since the plaintiff did not have any physical contact with D, the ground for disciplinary action of the salary reduction in this case is not recognized.
(ii) discretionary authority;