HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
31
respectively. These figures represent less than 1% of the total USD establishment of 16 000. The numbers of supervisory grade/Hawker Control grade staff found guilty of unauthorized absence in 1993, 1994 and 1995 are 2, 4 and 11 respectively. Again, these figures represent less than 1% of the total supervisory/Hawker Control grade establishment of about 2 900.
Although the situation is apparently not serious as reflected by the figures, we should monitor and firmly implement the existing system of disciplinary action in USD in order to completely prevent the recurrence of staff misconduct and to further enhance the image of the Urban Council.
In fact, the past 3 years' records of punishment imposed on staff found guilty of unauthorized absence reveal that the Department has taken disciplinary action against all those guilty of such misconduct, and the punishments ranged from verbal warnings for minor offences to instant dismissals for the most serious cases. Fines may also be imposed, depending on the gravity of the offence committed. During the past 3 years, disciplinary actions which included 51 verbal warnings, 60 written warnings, 3 reprimands, 3 severe reprimands, 2 compulsory retirements and 1 dismissal were taken against the USD staff. In addition, fines were imposed in 5 cases to enhance the punitive effect.
There are 2 types of disciplinary action in force, i.e. informal disciplinary action and formal disciplinary action: informal disciplinary action is for first or minor offences that do not warrant formal disciplinary proceedings, whereas the formal disciplinary action is for repeated or serious offences which have undergone formal disciplinary proceedings, and for criminal offences for which the staff have been convicted by court hence requiring no formal disciplinary proceedings. Punishments which vary according to the gravity and frequency of the offences committed, apply to all staff including civil servants, contract staff and temporary staff, and can be in the form of verbal warning, written warning, dismissal, compulsory retirement, fines, demotion, severe reprimand, stoppage or deferment of increment, etc..
But in deciding on the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken, careful consideration should be given to both the mitigating factors (such as the offender's low education level, absence of previous record of misconduct, an offence unrelated to duties and a record of distinguished service), aggravating factors of individual cases (such as the offender being a member of the management or a law enforcer, an offence directly related to duties, offence damaging the reputation of the Urban Council and the Urban Services Department, a poor track record of misconduct, etc.), as well as precedent action which has been taken against similar offences. In addition, the accountability of the offender's senior officer for the offence and the soundness of the management system should also be considered. In the case of a rather serious offence or misconduct that nevertheless does not warrant dismissal or compulsory retirement, it may be necessary to impose a fine on top of a reprimand or serious reprimand to enhance the punitive effect.
Page 318 of 485
Page 318 of 485
Page 318 of 485
Page 318 of 485
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
31
respectively. These figures represent less than 1% of the total USD establishment of 16 000. The numbers of supervisory grade/Hawker Control grade staff found guilty of unauthorized absence' in 1993, 1994 and 1995 are 2, 4 and 11 respectively. Again, these figures represent less than 1% of the total supervisory/ Hawker Control grade establishment of about 2 900.
Although the situation is apparently not serious as reflected by the figures, we should monitor and firmly implement the existing system of disciplinary action in USD in order to completely prevent the recurrence of staff misconduct and to further enhance the image of the Urban Council.
In fact, the past 3 years' records of punishment imposed on staff found guilty of unauthorized absence reveal that the Department has taken disciplinary action against all those guilty of such misconduct, and the punishments ranged from verbal warnings for minor offences to instant dismissals for the most serious cases. Fines may also be imposed, depending on the gravity of the offence committed. During the past 3 years, disciplinary actions which included 51 verbal warnings, 60 written warnings, 3 reprimands, 3 severe reprimands, 2 compulsory retirements and I dismissal were taken against the USD staff. In addition, fines were imposed in 5 cases to enhance the punitive effect.
There are 2 types of disciplinary action in force, i.e. informal disciplinary action and formal disciplinary action: informal disciplinary action is for first or minor offences that do not warrant formal disciplinary proceedings, whereas the formal disciplinary action is for repeated or serious offences which have undergone formal disciplinary proceedings, and for criminal offences for which the staff have been convicted by court hence requiring no formal disciplinary proceedings. Punishments which vary according to the gravity and frequency of the offences committed, apply to all staff including civil servants, contract staff and temporary staff, and can be in the form of verbal warning, written warning, dismissal, compulsory retirement, fines, demotion, severe reprimand, stoppage or deferment of increment, etc..
But in deciding on the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken, careful consideration should be given to both the mitigating factors (such as the offender's low education level, absence of previous record of misconduct, an offence unrelated to duties and a record of distinguished service), aggravating factors of individual cases (such as the offender being a member of the management or a law enforcer, an offence directly related to duties, offence damaging the reputation of the Urban Council and the Urban Services Department, a poor track record of misconduct, etc.), as well as precedent action which has been taken against similar offences. In addition, the accountability of the offender's senior officer for the offence and the soundness of the management system should also be considered. In the case of a rather serious offence or misconduct that nevertheless does not warrant dismissal or compulsory retirement, it may be necessary to impose a fine on top of a reprimand or serious reprimand to enhance the punitive effect.
Page 318 of 485
Page 318 of 485
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.