Civil Service Disciplinary Standards: Gross vs Simple Negligence Criteria and Practical Implementation
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
When private companies conduct disciplinary procedures against employees, they often apply distinctions based on the severity of negligence, but clear judgment criteria are frequently absent.
Many private companies benchmark the civil service disciplinary system when establishing their disciplinary regulations. Therefore, accurately understanding the principles of negligence classification applied in the civil service disciplinary system is essential, and these principles can serve as practical guidelines for private company disciplinary regulations.
2. Legal Framework of Disciplinary System
Legal Foundation and Disciplinary Structure
Korea’s civil service disciplinary system is based on Article 78 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) of the State Public Officials Act and Article 69 of the Local Public Officials Act, defining violations of laws and regulations, breaches of official duties, neglect of duties, and conduct damaging to dignity as grounds for disciplinary action.
Disciplinary dispositions are divided into major disciplines of dismissal, removal, demotion, and suspension, and minor disciplines of salary reduction and reprimand. Since 2019, disciplinary surcharges can be imposed in addition for misconduct related to money and goods.
Criteria in Enforcement Rules
Annex 1 of the Enforcement Rules of the Civil Service Disciplinary Decree stipulates differential disciplinary action by distinguishing between “cases where the degree of duty violation is severe and constitutes gross negligence” and “cases where the degree of duty violation is minor and constitutes simple negligence.” However, these criteria remain abstract in nature, with no specific judgment factors or application methodologies specified.
3. Negligence Classification System
Core Elements of Gross Negligence
Gross negligence includes the following core elements:
- Serious breach of duty of care equivalent to intentional conduct
- Cases where the outcome could have been avoided with minimal attention but such attention was not given
- Repeated and continuous duty violations
- Violations despite foreseeable serious consequences
Core Elements of Simple Negligence
Simple negligence is relatively minor negligence with the following characteristics:
- Negligence occurring during sincere and proactive work processes
- Cases where the degree of duty violation is minor
- Cases resulting from simple carelessness or mistakes
- One-time or accidental negligent acts
4. Connection to Compensation Liability
Article 2 of the State Compensation Act recognizes the state’s right of recourse only in cases of gross negligence by public officials, creating substantial effects linked to the disciplinary system.
This is significant in that the classification of negligence severity determines not only disciplinary decisions but also the scope of economic responsibility.
5. Differentiation of Penalty Levels
Disciplinary dispositions are applied differentially according to the degree of negligence. Even for identical violations, heavier disciplinary action is taken when judged as gross negligence, while relatively lighter action is taken when judged as simple negligence.
6. Sector-Specific Application Examples
Subdivision of Work-Related Negligence Cases
In practice, work-related negligence is subdivided and applied as follows:
Simple Negligence Application Examples:
- Document errors due to simple mistakes → Reprimand
Gross Negligence Application Examples:
- Repeated work delays or significant work errors → Salary reduction or higher
Negligence Classification in Money and Goods Receipt
According to Improper Solicitation and Graft Act standards, the following distinctions apply:
- Receipt of money and goods is judged as gross negligence regardless of job relevance
- Intentional receipt of money and goods: Removal to dismissal
- Receipt within social norms without reporting: Salary reduction to reprimand
Differential Application for Traffic Violations and Drunk Driving
Current drunk driving discipline uses blood alcohol concentration as the core criterion, with refusal to take alcohol tests being recognized as intentional conduct receiving the heaviest punishment. Attempts to call designated drivers are merely mitigating factors, not exempting circumstances.
7. Operational Challenges and Improvement Directions
Structural Ambiguity in Negligence Classification Criteria
Current laws do not specify concrete definitions or judgment criteria for gross negligence and simple negligence, creating practical judgment difficulties. The most serious problem is the lack of predictability due to abstract criteria such as “duty to maintain dignity.”
This results in different judgments by different agencies for identical cases, raising questions about the consistency and fairness of disciplinary dispositions.
8. Summary
The distinction between gross negligence and simple negligence in the civil service disciplinary system is a core factor in determining disciplinary severity, but the ambiguity of the current legal framework creates difficulties in consistent practical application.
The lack of predictability due to absent specific judgment criteria and inter-agency dispositional disparities represent areas requiring urgent systemic improvement. Clear criteria establishment is needed for fair and consistent disciplinary system operation.
Attorney Taejin Kim recently provided professional consultation on distinguishing gross negligence from simple negligence in private company disciplinary matters, supporting the company in conducting accurate and fair disciplinary procedures.