|摘要: ||公務人員因特別權力關係之前提下，使其權益受到限制外，救濟制度亦不受重視。隨著二次大戰結束，興起基本人權保障之重視，進而形成民主國家憲政思想之主流，而大幅修正了特別權力關係在實務上或經驗上之見解，使公務人員之保障逐漸為各國所重視。因此，如何建構公務人員之救濟制度，以確保公務人員權益，進而激勵公務人員勇於任事、忠於職守，並促進行政革新，提昇行政效率，乃是政府機關追求之目標。本研究以政府所制定「公務人員保障法」中之復審及申訴標的為構面，設計十五個訪談題目，針對九個公務機關作隨機抽樣共計三十五位具公務人員資格之公務人員進行實地深度訪談。俾得知公務人員對自身權益救濟途徑之認知程度。本研究共得以下幾項結論：壹、服務機關與法律愈有關之單位公務人員，其對保障法中復審、申訴制度內涵熟悉度愈高，反之則低，甚至模糊不清。貳、對世界各民主國家之復審、申訴制度，知道與不知道的情況各占一半。參、對復審標的所為行政處分，但如何界定其內涵，認為有爭議的情況仍佔大多數。肆、約有85.7﹪之受訪公務員認為縱使未改變公務人員身分，但對其權益有重大影響時，均同意為提起復審之標的。以便有更周詳的保障。伍、對有關「（未）請假」 「曠職」 「扣薪」之間，實務上切割為「申訴」與「復審」程序，分途處理，認為不妥適者佔訪談人數51.43﹪。認為妥適者為40﹪。陸、受訪談之公務人員其學歷愈高者，愈能充分表達其意見與看法，對其自身權益之救濟較有認知。柒、對於申訴再申訴後，不能提司法救濟之事項，有部分公務人員認為有欠公平，雖謂對公務人員無重大影響，即未改變其身分，但對其工作尊嚴仍受到傷害。因此建議在再申訴後仍有司法救濟之途徑。捌、對公務人員之免職處分，依大法官491號解釋謂：免職處分實質上已屬懲戒處分之性質，其構成要件要以法律定之，不得以行政命令定之。玖、公務人員保障暨培訓委員會其定位應為準司法機關（不隸屬考試院），以便獨立行使職權免受行政一體之干涉與官官相護之譏，以確實保障公務人員權益。拾、受訪之公務人員建議主管公部門（即保訓會）應加強各機關學校公務人員之教育訓練與宣導，使全體公務人員了解救濟制度之真締與公務人員保障法中所規定之內容。|
The rights and benefits of public servants have been once limited because of the restraints from special power relationship, and the remedies of them have not been paid attention to as well. Since the end of World War II, however, human rights protection became the main thought of constitution in every democratic country, therefore, the opinion of special power relationship in practice has been changed now, which makes the protection of public servants much more important than before.Therefore, how to build a sound remedies to assure the rights and benefits of public servants to encourage them to hold accountable to one’s duty, and promote administrative efficiency, become governments always want to achieve. This research tries to examine the extent of recognition of public servants about the way to guard their rights and benefits with interviews, which are randomly selected 35 public servants form 9 public organizations to answer 15 topics .This study has some conclusions as follows：
A、The higher correlation between the service and the justice is, the better acknowledgement of rehearing in protection laws and the content of grievance system the public servants have, and vice versa even vague about it.
B、Half of public servants doesn’t understand rehearing and grievance systems of the world.
C、Most interviewees still argue how to define the target of administrative punishments in rehearing.
D、About 85.7% of interviewed public servants agree to request rehearing in order to protect their rights more completely.
E、About 51.43% of interviewees don’t think deal with the cases about “not asking for leave”arrow ”absent from work without leave”arrow ”cutting salaries” appropriately by grievance and rehearing respectively, but still about 40% of interviewees think that it is perfect.
F、The higher educations interviewees have, the more sufficiently they express opinions and suggestions. They know more about reliefs of their own rights.
G.、Some public servants think it is injustice that they cannot appeal for relief after second grievance. Although it doesn’t affect them a lot (it doesn’t change their status), their dignity in work is still hurt. Hence, it is suggested that there’s a relief after grievance.
H、According to J. Y. Interpretation No.491, discharge decision actually belongs to discipline, so that it should be made by law not ordered by administrative order.
I、The Civil Service Protection and Training Commission should be defined as a quasi-judiciary (not subordinate to the Examination Yuan), so that the rights and interests of civil servants are protected so as to make them fearless of responsibility and willing to make efforts and to resist interfering form the administration.
J、The public servants interviewed suggest their administrative department (civil service protection and training commission) to enhance their educational training and propagation, so that they can understand the truth of grievance system and regulations of protection of their own rights