Summary
A PAC driver dismissed after an alcohol-related driving accident sought substitution of compulsory retirement. The Court emphasised the seriousness of endangering personnel and held that absence of a fatal outcome alone warranted no leniency. On the particular combination of his long service, the possible explanation considered, the minor accident and his subsequent death, it nevertheless converted dismissal to compulsory retirement and directed lawful consequential benefits to his heirs.
Issues
- Whether the dismissal should be converted to compulsory retirement in the deceased employee’s particular circumstances.
Held
- The disciplinary finding of alcohol-related misconduct stood; only the severity of punishment was pressed. Driving personnel under the influence was serious misconduct, and a minor outcome could not by itself justify leniency given the risk to their lives. (¶ 8-11)
- The Court considered the employee’s explanation of consuming alcohol after the accident possibly plausible, while recognising that it had not been accepted. Taken with 25 years’ service, the minor accident and his death during proceedings, the peculiar circumstances justified treating dismissal as too harsh. The misconduct finding was not overturned. (¶ 12-13)
- Dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement. Death-cum-retirement benefits and family pension, if any, were to be paid to the legal heirs according to law on that basis. The appeal was partly allowed to this extent without costs. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; dismissal converted to compulsory retirement, with lawful death-cum-retirement benefits and family pension, if any, payable to the heirs. No costs.