The decision by the first-instance court has determined that the three-month suspension of the fire department official who received a request for favoritism to alter the promotion report and provided promotion-related information to the requester is justified.
The Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 3, presided over by Director General Choi Soo-jin, recently ruled against fire department official A in the first-instance lawsuit he filed to annul the disciplinary action taken by the Commissioner of the Korea National Fire Agency.
A was appointed as a local firefighter in 1995 and was promoted to fire captain in 2021. He received a request from B, who was the head of the Central 119 Rescue Headquarters at the time, asking him to assist with the fire captain promotion while he was on assignment at the Minister's Office of the Ministry of the Interior and Safety from 2019 to 2021.
Subsequently, A altered the list of candidate fire captain promotion nominees to report to the Minister from the existing order of 'alphabetical' to the order favorable to B, 'current position (promotion date).' When the Minister marked B's name with '①', A informed B of this fact. Additionally, A reported to the Minister that 'B is more qualified for promotion than others' and informed B about the personnel verification process and background confirmed through former Blue House personnel during the verification period for B's promotion to fire captain.
In response, the Fire Service Disciplinary Committee imposed a three-month suspension on A in September 2023. A stated to the disciplinary committee, 'There is no compensation for sharing the overall progress regarding the promotion process.' However, the committee determined that A's promotion from fire chief to fire captain after 3 years and 11 months during B's tenure as Vice Administrator of the Korea National Fire Agency was unusually fast, indicating compensation was involved.
A filed a petition with the Administrative Appeals Committee to cancel the three-month suspension, but when it was dismissed, he brought the case to court. A argued, 'It is true that I was somewhat involved in B's personnel matters and shared that information with B, but it was merely a personal conversation.' He also claimed, 'I did not receive a promotion in exchange for compensation' and stated that 'the disciplinary committee abused its discretion and imposed an excessive punishment.'
The court dismissed A's request. The panel stated, 'A's actions can be assessed as related to the request for favoritism,' adding that 'reporting content favorable to a request from others cannot be considered a legitimate part of official duties.' Furthermore, they concluded that 'reporting this directly to B goes beyond merely expressing A's personal opinion and constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.'
Moreover, the panel noted, 'A's actions severely undermine the integrity of the civil servant promotion process, resulting in a relatively significant breakdown of public office discipline,' asserting that 'the three-month suspension is not excessively harsh, and there is no illegality in the disciplinary committee's action.'