Dean of College Disciplined for Faculty Member's Negligence... Court Rules "Disciplinary Action Unfair"

A court ruling has found that disciplining a dean of a college for negligence in management and supervision of a faculty member who conducted substitute teaching and was insincere in class was unjust.

Seoul Administrative Court.

According to the legal community on the 14th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 2 (Presiding Judge Ko Eun-seol) ruled against plaintiff A University in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of a decision by the Faculty Appeal Committee.

A University disciplined Professor B of the College of Engineering with a three-month suspension for violating the duty of sincerity by having teaching assistants or research professors conduct substitute classes for undergraduate and graduate courses over six semesters from 2019 to 2021. Additionally, Professor C, who was the dean of the College of Engineering at the time, was subject to a one-month salary reduction requested by the Faculty Appeal Committee for negligence in management and supervision.

Professor C filed a petition with the Faculty Appeal Committee to cancel the disciplinary action. When the committee accepted this petition, A University filed the current administrative lawsuit in opposition.

The court sided with the Faculty Appeal Committee, stating that it could not be concluded that Professor C neglected his management and supervision duties. The court held, “According to A University regulations, the overall academic affairs and management and supervision duties of faculty members in a college belong to the graduate school dean, and the part concerning Professor C, dean of the College of Engineering at A University, regarding Professor B’s absence from graduate school classes in the College of Engineering, is not recognized as a violation of management and supervision duties.”

Furthermore, the court noted, “In 2021, there were 126 professors and 441 courses offered at the College of Engineering,” and considering that “the head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering did not report Professor B’s substitute teaching, and Professor B did not submit a plan for substitute classes or make-up classes to the school,” the court concluded that “it was difficult for Professor C to be aware of Professor B’s issues, and therefore, there is no fault in not knowing the facts.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.