| 關 鍵 詞： |
懲處；公務員；救濟；審查密度；公務人員保障及訓練委員會；公務人員保障法 |
| 中文摘要： |
一般來說，對於審查密度之討論，多用於法院對於行政機關所作成之決定的審查，但比較特殊的是，我國在對於公務人員權利受到損害時，特設有一救濟制度，因此必須要先去討論的是公務人員保障暨培訓委員會（以下簡稱保訓會）對於服務機關做成決定之審查密度。依據公務人員考績法第 12 條規定，懲處之種類分為申誡、記過、記大過，又一次記兩大過者應予免職。於此，懲處應可分為申誡、記過、記大過與免職四種。在救濟管道上來說，又可分為申訴、再申訴以及復審。申訴與再申訴乃是針對「公務人員對於服務機關所為之管理措施或有關工作條件之處置認為不當，致影響其權益者」。另一方面，公務人員對於服務機關或人事主管機關（以下均簡稱原處分機關）所為之行政處分，認為違法或顯然不當，致損害其權利或利益者，得依本法提起復審。其中再申訴與復審制度是由保訓會所掌理。
而從數量上可以發現，關於懲處案件來說，保訓會對於服務機關撤銷的比例並不高。在理由上，復審而撤銷的理由，多以程序不合法為之，再申訴決定上，因為實體上的理由而被撤銷者反而成為主要的原因。而公務員人事處分，在學理上向來是判斷餘地理論所及，然而，我國特設有一救濟制度，倘若僅採低密度審查，則制度失其意義。另一方面，由於委員會具備獨立性，在程序上也足以保障當事人之權利，因此行政院採行低密度審查即為已足。而在法官與檢察官的懲處上，由於法官法之實施，與原有制度有部分變動。但仍維持懲戒與懲處雙軌，並且增加評鑑制度，就其發展仍有待觀察。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Punishment；civil servants；intensity of judicial review；remedy；Civil Service Protection and Training Commission；Civil Service Protection Act |
| 英文摘要： |
The discussions concerning about the intensity of judicial review are generally related to the decisions made by the court against the administrative body. However, there is a special remedy system for those civil servants, whose rights have been infringed, to apply. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the intensity of review made by the Civil Service Protection and Training Commission (CSPTC). There are several ways for remedy, for instance, appeal, second appeal and reexamination. And CSPTC is in charge of cases of second appeal and reexamination.
We can tell from the amount that only few cases of judicial punishment were dismissed by CSPTC. The reason is that most cases of reexamination were dismissed due to the unlawful procedure and that cases of second appeal were mostly dismissed because of the substantial ground, which is the main reason to lead to the consequence. Moreover, the application of “Beurteilungsspielraum” theory often includes the personal sanctions of civil servants. However, the special remedy system in Taiwan might lose its meaning if we apply the low intensity review. On the other hand, it is also adequate for the administrative Yuan to apply low intensity review since that the commission is independent and that it can as well provides sufficient procedural protection. Now that Judges Act was implemented, punishments of judges and prosecutors have partially altered, yet the dual-track system of judicial punishment and administrative punishment still sustained and added a system of evaluation. Accordingly, the development of the new system still remains to be seen.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、現行懲處之觀察
參、德國法上對於公務員考績評定的審查密度
肆、服務機關與保訓會的判斷餘地
伍、準司法救濟的公務員保障制度
陸、結語
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|