論教師行政課責的合憲性與適法性

The Discussion on Constitutionality and Legality of Teacher's Administrative Duty

許禎元(Chen-Yuan Hsu)

《學校行政》 61期 (2009/05) Pp. 178-195

https://doi.org/10.6423/HHHC.200905.0178

摘要

公立學校教師為人民與國家（自治團體）訂定行政契約，係受國家委任行使教育任務、按月支領國家俸給之廣義公務員，雖依教師法「尊師重道」的立法精神，有關權利義務應由雙方議定，無由一方基於意思優越之地位，而不適用國家懲戒及懲處制度。惟依教師法、大學法及教育人員任用條例等規定，仍負加因身分義務而附隨的行政責任，包括解職（解聘、不續聘及停聘）及不得提出升等、晉薪、支領超支鐘點費、兼職兼課、休假研究等實質懲戒的行政課責，而主管機關依教師法另訂有性質上為懲處的教師成績考核辦法，此種教師行政課責的適法性及合憲性，洵非無疑。

關鍵字

教師懲戒 ； 教師懲處 ； 教師申訴 ； 教師解聘 ； 教師行政責任

並列摘要

The public school's teachers, sign as a party of administrative contract with governments, are also generalized officials authorized to execute educational goals and salaried monthly. For the will of Teacher Act to esteem teachers, the contract should be signed freely and equally that no party's intention is superior to the other, teachers don't apply to the national disciplinary measures and service rating. Though the rule of Teacher Act, University Act and Educators Appointment Act, teachers didn't however exempt from administrative duty including deprival of job, evaluation, promotion, overtime pay and vacation on errand. The authoried administration also enacted enforcement rules of service rating to estimate teachers' accomplishments. Indeed, the relative requirements of service rating of teachers are disputable with violation of Constitution.

並列關鍵字

Teacher's disciplinary measures ； Teacher's service rating ； Teacher's grievance ； Teacher's dismissal ； Teacher's administrative duty

參考文獻

王文忠(2005)。考績懲處行使之探討。考銓季刊。43，135-161。

吳庚(2005)。行政法之理論與實用。台北:三民。

李惠宗(2004)。教育行政法。台北:元照。

李惠宗(2007)。行政罰法之理論與案例。台北:元照。

李建良(2000)。行政命令與國會監督。臺灣本土法學雜誌。6，159-162。