Wrongfulness as a sign of violation of the oath

Abstract

The article examines the wrongfulness as a sign of violation of the oath. It is noted that if observance of labor discipline is achieved by methods of encouragement, persuasion, education, and, if necessary, by methods of coercion, then it is possible to ensure the observance of the oath only by a negative and strict method – dismissal from service, without the right to occupy certain categories of posts in the future.

The author noted that the task of the public service, cartelized with the content of the Oath of a public servant, consists, first of all, in the proper provision of state-managerial relations, which are inherently consciously volitional. The content of the Oath of the civil servant, which reinforces the duty of the servant to faithfully serve to the Ukrainian people, thereby indicates the general duty of public service offices, local self-government and other public authorities to serve the people as a manifestation of public administration.

It is concluded that the court decisions do not state that the violation of the oath should be illegal, guilty and directed against the rights, interests, benefits. Judgments only establish the fact that the act contradicts the duties of a civil servant.

In our opinion, it is somewhat superficial and formal to establish the wrongfulness of this act only on the basis of the inconsistency of the actions of a public servant with his duties. On the other hand, the court, checking the legality of the decision of the subject of power in the case of dismissal from service for violation of the oath, is not the authority that was empowered to establish the composition of the misconduct.