In Brief
A government employee dismissed from service for absence from duty challenged the dismissal. The Supreme Court held that while some absences were misconduct, dismissal was a disproportionately harsh penalty under the doctrine of proportionality and Articles 14 and 16. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the dismissal but instead of back-wages, deemed the employee to have remained in service until completing minimum qualifying service for pension eligibility. The employee became entitled to pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits without arrears of salary from the dismissal date.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.