Overslept 816 times - and still not fired?

Civil servant is late for years - and still stays on duty

A civil servant is regularly late for four years, a total of 816 times. The total of his tardiness amounted to 1,614 hours - the equivalent of almost nine months' work. But instead of losing his job, he is only demoted. How can that be?

The case concerns a senior government official at the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin). Between 2014 and 2018, he was regularly late for work. His employer recognized the problem as early as 2015 and initiated disciplinary proceedings. The Düsseldorf Administrative Court finally ruled: Dismissal from civil servant status!

But that was not the end of the matter - the civil servant lodged an appeal. The case ended up before the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig, which assessed the matter differently.

The verdict: dismissal too harsh

The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that dismissal was not proportionate. Although there had been a serious breach of duty, such a drastic punishment was not justified. The most important reasons:

The accumulated time of the delays could not be equated with months of absence from work.

The employer should first have taken milder disciplinary measures, such as warnings or salary cuts.

The final verdict: the civil servant is not dismissed, but demoted. He loses his rank as senior government councillor and is demoted to government councillor.

Civil servant status: protection or problem?

This ruling raises fundamental questions: Do civil servants enjoy too much protection?

In the private sector, an employee who has been regularly late for years would probably have lost their job long ago. However, civil servants are subject to disciplinary law, which sets high hurdles for dismissal. Even in the case of repeated misconduct, the employer must first impose more lenient penalties before removal from the service can be considered.

Critics see this as a problem: is it fair to other employees? Anyone who is absent without excuse for nine months must normally expect serious consequences. The ruling also seems questionable for taxpayers - after all, they finance the salaries of civil servants.

Supporters of the ruling, on the other hand, argue that although the civil servant has shown misconduct, dismissal is a drastic step. Disciplinary law should ensure that not every minor offense leads to immediate dismissal.

What does this mean for the future?

The case shows that it is difficult to dismiss civil servants - even in cases of serious misconduct. This could lead to discussions in the future. Should the protection for civil servants be relaxed? Or is the ruling a necessary safeguard against arbitrary dismissals?

The fact is that those with civil servant status can obviously afford more than employees in the private sector. What do you think? Is this judgment fair or a free pass for unpunctual civil servants?