This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-06-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In view of the foregoing, we rule that respondent's admitted acts of pocketing checks and later encashing them for her benefit constitute grave misconduct.[9] We have defined grave misconduct as follows: Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer; and the misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, such as willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.[10] | |||||