The Board of Grievances upholds the dismissal of an employee due to absenteeism

issued The Board of Grievances a decisive administrative ruling rejecting a compensation claim filed by an employee whose services were terminated. This decision came after the competent authorities determined that the employee had actually ceased performing his job duties, despite signing in and out daily, thus establishing an important legal principle affirming the legitimacy of administrative decisions in such cases.

Details of the case and the dismissal of the compensation claim

The Administrative Court of Appeal revealed details of the case, in which the plaintiff employee sought to compel his employer to pay him financial compensation after he was dismissed on the grounds of absenteeism. The plaintiff based his claim on proof of his daily attendance through his official signature in the attendance register, arguing that this signature negated the claim of absenteeism and that his actions did not fall under the legal grounds for termination of employment.

However, the court, through examination of official documents, determined that the employee's attendance was merely a formality; he would sign in and then leave immediately without performing any duties for an entire month. The plaintiff admitted to this behavior but maintained that the definition of actual absence did not apply to him as long as his attendance was documented in writing or electronically.

The legal basis for termination of service

The judicial authority clarified that the Kingdom's civil service regulations are clear and explicit on this matter, permitting the termination of an employee's service if they are absent from work without a legitimate excuse for 15 consecutive days or 30 non-consecutive days within a single year. The Board of Grievances emphasized in its ruling that official attendance is not achieved merely by signing the attendance register, but is fundamentally based on the performance of the job duties assigned to the employee according to their job description.

General and historical context of the Board of Grievances

The Board of Grievances is an independent administrative judicial body directly linked to the King. It was established to ensure justice and fairness and to protect the rights of both individuals and government entities. In recent years, the Saudi administrative judiciary has witnessed remarkable development and a comprehensive digitization of its procedures, contributing to the swift resolution of administrative cases. This ruling aligns with the Kingdom's general direction of promoting integrity and combating administrative inefficiency, objectives that directly intersect with Saudi Vision 2030, which seeks to enhance performance efficiency in the public sector and achieve the highest standards of transparency and accountability.

The importance of the event and its expected impact

Local impact

Domestically, this ruling sends a firm message to all public sector employees that performance monitoring goes beyond mere attendance records to encompass actual productivity. This approach contributes to eliminating disguised unemployment and absenteeism, positively impacting the quality of services provided to citizens and residents, and protecting public funds from the waste of paying salaries to unproductive employees.

Regional and international impact

Regionally and internationally, this ruling reinforces Saudi Arabia's image as a state that upholds the rule of law and adopts rigorous governance standards in its government institutions. The existence of a strong and effective administrative judiciary reassures investors and international partners that the Kingdom's administrative environment is characterized by seriousness and professionalism, and is subject to judicial oversight that ensures the efficiency of the government agencies they deal with.

Summary of the ruling

In conclusion, the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the validity of the administrative body's decision to terminate the employee's service. The court affirmed the absence of any fault warranting compensation, thus dismissing the case due to the lack of any legal basis supporting the plaintiff's claims. Furthermore, the court established that merely signing in and then leaving constituted an actual absence from work, violating the essence of the employee's professional obligations.