[감봉처분취소청구사건][고집1972특,333]
Whether the period of disciplinary action under the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials is interrupted due to the continuation of a lawsuit.
In the case of continuing a lawsuit, unless there is a separate provision that suspends the proceedings such as the case of an appeals review committee under Article 20 (3) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials, the provisions concerning the appeals review committee cannot be inferred and expanded interpretation. Therefore, when two years have elapsed from the date on which the cause for disciplinary action in question occurred, the person having the disciplinary authority shall not
Article 20 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials
Plaintiff
Minister of Delivery
As of August 17, 1971, the defendant revoked the disposition of the plaintiff's salary reduction for six months.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
On August 26, 1969, the defendant dismissed the appeal of the Supreme Court on May 24, 1971, which was rendered a favorable decision of the Supreme Court on the grounds that the plaintiff's dismissal was abuse of discretion, and the defendant again demanded a re-resolution resolution on July 3, 1971 and caused the same misconduct as of August 17, 1971, and thus, there is no dispute between the parties concerned over the fact that the plaintiff was dismissed in salary 6 months.
As one of the grounds for appeal that the above reduction disposition is illegal, the Plaintiff cannot be subject to disciplinary action at the lapse of two years from the date of the occurrence of the disciplinary cause pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree. However, the Defendant asserted that the above reduction disposition was a wrong disposition in violation of the above Acts and subordinate statutes prior to the two years, and the Defendant may be deemed to have extended the appeal, so the Defendant is able to regard the administrative litigation as an extension of the appeal. As such, it is argued that there was no error in the disciplinary action that requested a second disciplinary resolution within one month from the date of receiving the decision of the Supreme Court on the grounds of administrative litigation under Article
Therefore, we judge this point.
According to Article 20(1) and (3) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials (Article 22(1) and (3) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials (Article 22(3) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials), a request for disciplinary action may not be made at the expiration of two years from the date on which a cause for disciplinary action occurred, but when an appeals review committee makes a decision to nullify or cancel a disciplinary action due to the composition of the disciplinary committee, disciplinary resolution or other procedural defect, a person entitled to a request for disciplinary action, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), may re-request a
In light of the above, if a removal disposition is revoked by the court's decision on the ground that it is abuse of discretion, the disciplinary authority may take a new disciplinary action to the extent that it does not deviate from discretion, and unless there is a separate provision that suspends the proceedings such as the case of the appeals review committee in the case of pending litigation, it is unapplicable by analogy and expansion of the regulations of the appeals review committee. Therefore, when two years have elapsed from the date of occurrence of the disciplinary cause in question, the disciplinary authority cannot demand a new disciplinary resolution and therefore, it is impossible to take
Therefore, it is not necessary to determine the remainder of the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant demanded a new resolution to the plaintiff for the same reason after two years from the time when the cause of the disciplinary action occurred.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the defendant's salary reduction disposition is illegal is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant.
It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Yong-Ank, Myun (Presiding Judge)