감봉처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a patrol officer on August 28, 1993, and was promoted as the mitigation on April 23, 2014, and currently serving as a police officer belonging to the Gyeonggi-do Southern Provincial Police Agency B and Police Agency B, from January 29, 2015 to April 19, 2017.
B. On May 18, 2017, the head of C head of C (hereinafter referred to as “head of C head”) was subject to disciplinary action for two months of salary reduction pursuant to Article 78(1)1, 2, and 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff committed an unlawful act, such as the grounds for disciplinary action specified in attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant grounds for disciplinary action”) at the time that he/she was in office with C, and that he/she violated the duty of good faith and obeying orders by committing each of the grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter referred to as “first disciplinary action”), and the Ministry of Personnel Management revoked the said disposition on the ground that the Minister of Personnel Management did not apply the reduction of reward and decoration on September 26, 2017.
C. On May 22, 2017, the Plaintiff was ordered to the Gwangju Regional Police Agency B of the Gyeonggi-do District Police Agency, and the Defendant, on November 2, 2017, issued a disciplinary disposition for two months of salary reduction in accordance with Article 78(1)1 and 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff breached its duty of good faith, duty of obey, and duty of maintenance of dignity by committing the misconduct of each of the instant disciplinary grounds.
(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). D.
On November 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disciplinary action. On January 23, 2018, the Ministry of Personnel Management dismissed the appeal.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action on the following grounds.
① With respect to the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1 of this case, it cannot be deemed that the head of C head of C gave the Plaintiff a warning about safety warnings, etc. on March 2017, and the notice is not clearly indicated by the other party.