A public official who operated a pig's feet restaurant under his wife's name in violation of dual employment prohibition regulations has been caught. The official, who received a reprimand, filed an administrative lawsuit claiming he was wronged, but lost.
On the 14th, the Incheon District Court Administrative Division 2 (Director General Song Jong-seon) announced that it had ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by a public official known as A from a public institution under the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, seeking to cancel a reprimand.
A was caught during a visit by personnel from his agency after receiving a tip-off while he was running a pig's feet restaurant under his wife's name on March 11 of last year.
He had worked part-time for four months without obtaining dual employment permission even before taking over the pig's feet restaurant, and it was found that he sometimes slept in the duty room of his agency late at night after closing hours.
In response, the agency held a disciplinary committee and issued a reprimand to A for violating the duty of maintaining dignity and the prohibition of engaging in commercial activities and dual employment. According to the National Public Service Act, public official disciplinary actions are divided into major penalties such as dismissal, demotion, or suspension, and minor penalties such as salary reductions and reprimands. A reprimand is the lowest level of disciplinary action.
However, A contested the disciplinary action and filed a complaint with the Ministry of Personnel Management's grievance review committee. After it was dismissed, he claimed he was wronged and filed an administrative lawsuit in October of last year.
A argued that the monitoring staff did not inform him of their identity and purpose of visit during the on-site investigation, and coerced him into writing a confirmation, claiming the disciplinary process was illegal.
A stated, "I only partially assisted with the restaurant acquired by my wife from an acquaintance, and I did not actually operate it," adding, "I did not work for profit before my wife took over the restaurant."
He further claimed, "I operated the restaurant for my livelihood, and the period I worked part-time was not long," insisting, "I have faithfully fulfilled my duties as a public official, and the reprimand is an illegal act of abusing discretion."
However, the court determined that the grounds for the disciplinary action were legitimate and that the relevant procedures were carried out lawfully. The court explained, "It appears the plaintiff was engaged in commercial activities while actually operating the restaurant," adding, "As a public official, the plaintiff engaged in inappropriate conduct that damaged the dignity of a public servant without permission to conduct commercial activities."
The court also stated, "The defendant's intention to establish public order through discipline is justified," and noted, "The reprimand, the lightest discipline among public official penalties, does not exceed related standards."