정직처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details and details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff was appointed as an administrative assistant on October 26, 1981, and served as B Headquarters C of the Ministry of Health and Welfare from August 16, 201 to November 19, 201, after promotion to the administrative assistant on September 20, 2007.
B. On May 19, 2015, the Defendant issued a disciplinary action of “one month in extraordinary civil service” pursuant to Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that “The facts listed in attached Table 1 (referring to the method of “the grounds for disciplinary action” according to the sequence thereof are recognized)” against the Plaintiff and that it constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act.
(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) C.
On June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request with the appeals review committee to review the disciplinary action of this case, and the appeals review committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on September 23, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. Not only did the Plaintiff did not have committed an unlawful act, such as the attached Form 1, but also did not constitute sexual harassment within the scope permitted by social norms, as it does not constitute sexual harassment, in terms of the emotional support and encouragement for new female employees.
B. Considering that the act of the plaintiff's improper misconduct in the determination of disciplinary action was conducted at a level of interest and encouragement for female employees, and that there are circumstances to consider the circumstances, and that the plaintiff faithfully worked for about 25 years, the instant disciplinary action is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.
3. After receiving the instant disciplinary action, the Plaintiff retired on December 31, 2015.
However, in case where a public official is deprived of part or all of his interest due to an illegal disciplinary measure or property, at the time of the original or incidental disadvantage due to such a disciplinary measure.