Proportionality in disciplinary punishment upheld for prolonged unauthorised absence and public misconduct by an employee.

Dismissal from service for prolonged unauthorised absence and scandalous public statements was upheld because disciplinary punishment lies primarily within the employer's discretion and judicial review is limited to cases where the penalty is shockingly disproportionate, irrational, or one no reasonable employer would impose. The petitioner admitted the prolonged absence and the unauthorised media tirade against the government, and these proved charges were treated as grave misconduct, especially given the high office held. Earlier leniency and prior service record did not reduce the seriousness of the conduct. The court found the dismissal proportionate and declined interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner for prolonged unauthorised absence and scandalous media statements was so disproportionate as to warrant interference in judicial review.

Analysis: The petitioner did not dispute that he remained unauthorisedly absent for a prolonged period and had also made unauthorised and scandalous public statements against the government. The governing principle is that punishment lies primarily within the disciplinary authority's discretion, and judicial review is confined to examining whether the penalty is shockingly disproportionate, irrational, or such as no reasonable employer would impose. Applying that standard, the prolonged absence, the failure to regularise leave, the high office held by the petitioner, and the repeated public tirade against the employer were treated as grave misconduct. The prior service record and earlier leniency did not dilute the seriousness of the proved charges.

Conclusion: The punishment of dismissal was held to be proportionate and not shocking to the judicial conscience, so interference was declined.

---