A prison officer sacked for chronic absenteeism yesterday lost his High Court challenge to dismissal from the service seven years ago.
Prison Officer Michael Gaughan, of Oaktree Lawn, Carpenterstown, Dublin, was informed in February 1991 that the then minister for justice had decided to recommend his dismissal to the Government because of chronic absenteeism from work.
A letter to Mr Gaughan referred to warnings he had received in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1988 and pointed out that in the previous 10 years he had 110 separate periods - a total of 358 days - of absence from work.
In the previous four years, he had had 40 separate periods of absence totalling 162 days and in 1990 he had eight periods of absences totalling 69 days.
Mr Gaughan wrote to the Minister in March 1991 saying that injuries sustained as a result of his involvement in rugby and Gaelic had been a significant factor in his sick leave record. He had discontinued both sports. He said about one-third of the total number of sick days were related to treatment received in various hospitals.
In July 1991, Mr Gaughan was dismissed. In February the following year he applied for an order to quash his sacking or, alternatively, for a declaration that his removal was null and void. He also sought damages.
Judicial review proceedings were taken last January, during which the court was told that general prison service absenteeism in 1991 had cost the Department of Justice £4.2 million.
Delivering her reserved judgment on the matter yesterday, Ms Justice Carroll found Mr Gaughan had been given an adequate opportunity of furnishing explanations or making representations before his dismissal.
At no stage had the prison officer contested the accuracy of his sick record. When his attendance records were discovered, he had been unable to show that the records were seriously flawed or that the facts on which the Government had come to a decision were inaccurate to any material degree.
Ms Justice Carroll said she could not accept Mr Gaughan's submission that he was not aware that a serious view was being taken of his sick-leave record.
Any reasonable person would have realised this kind of record was unacceptable, she said. The judge dismissed the challenge, saying it was without merit.