Government Employee Absence from Work in Kuwait: Deemed Resignation or Dismissal, and How to Challenge It

Government employees stay away from work for many reasons: a sudden illness, a death in the family, an emergency abroad, or a dispute with a supervisor that led them to stop turning up. In some cases those days of absence end in a surprise administrative decision, which the employee receives by post or learns about from a colleague or from a salary that stops arriving: "you are deemed to have resigned", or "your service has been terminated for abandoning your post". The job that supported a family, a set of financial commitments and a pension future can disappear on a single sheet of paper, with no warning given and no chance to be heard.

The question is subtler than it looks. Kuwaiti law does not treat every absence as abandonment, every abandonment as resignation, or every implied resignation as lawful just because the authority issued a decision saying so. Between an excused absence and an unexcused abandonment lies a line drawn by proof. Between abandonment and a deemed resignation lie formal and substantive conditions, chief among them a prior warning. And between a deemed resignation and a disciplinary dismissal lies a real difference in procedure, guarantees and consequences. Confusing them costs employees rights they could have defended, or leads them to argue the right point in the wrong place.

This article takes a practical angle: when does a government employee's absence amount to a deemed resignation or a ground for removal, what safeguards must come first, which excuses defeat the charge and how are they proven, how does the employee file a grievance and challenge the decision before the Administrative Circuit, and what happens to financial entitlements. We do not repeat the general framework of public employment, covered in our article on public service, discipline, promotions and termination and in our guide to the Civil Service Law, nor the disciplinary right-to-be-heard rules explained in our article on disciplinary penalties imposed without investigation. We focus on what is particular to abandonment of work.

Quick Answer

An excused absence is not abandonment. The kind of absence that carries a grave consequence is staying away from work without permission and without an acceptable excuse, continuing in a way that shows the employee has left the job. That grave consequence, whether labelled a deemed resignation, termination of service or dismissal, ordinarily cannot arise until essential safeguards are met. The most important is a written warning telling the employee to return and spelling out what continued absence will lead to, together with a fair chance to explain the absence and a decision by the competent authority after the facts are verified.

If the decision was issued without a warning, without considering an excuse the employee offered, by someone without authority, or on facts that are wrong or unproven, it is defective and open to annulment. It is challenged by an annulment action before the Administrative Circuit under Law No. 20 of 1981, usually preceded by an administrative grievance asking the authority to reconsider. All of this runs against a strict statutory deadline that must be checked against the text currently in force before any step is taken, because a missed deadline shields even a flawed decision.

Financial entitlements depend on how the decision is characterised and on the employee's position when it was issued: pay for days actually worked, leave balances where they carry financial value, and insurance and pension rights under the Social Security Law No. 61 of 1976. If the decision is annulled the employee returns to his legal position as if he never left, with the consequences the court determines, and a separate compensation claim remains available for damage actually suffered.

Legislative Framework

The rules are spread across several texts that must be read together:

• Civil Service Law (Decree-Law No. 15 of 1979): the basic regulation of the civilian employee's relationship with the State: duties such as respecting working hours and not being absent without permission or excuse, rights to the various kinds of leave, the ways service ends including express resignation and resignation deemed by law, disciplinary penalties, and liability for breach of duties. Its implementing regulations and Civil Service Council decisions fill in the detail, including how absence is counted and what abandonment leads to.
• Law establishing the Administrative Circuit (No. 20 of 1981): sets the Circuit's jurisdiction over disputes about final administrative decisions, including decisions ending a public employee's service, lists the grounds of annulment (lack of competence, defect of form, violation of laws and regulations or error in applying them, abuse of power), and gives the Circuit jurisdiction over compensation claims arising from such decisions.
• Social Security Law (No. 61 of 1976): the reference for how the end of service affects pension rights and contribution periods, and when a pension or a lump-sum payment is due. The outcome can depend on the reason service ended and the length of contribution.
• Civil and Commercial Procedure Law (No. 38 of 1980): supplies procedural rules where the Administrative Circuit's own law is silent, such as service of process, deadlines and appearance.
• Law of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters (No. 39 of 1980): the general law of proof, although the administrative judge has wider powers to direct the inquiry and call for documents, since the authority holds the employee's file.

Note that some government bodies operate under special employment regimes distinct from the general civil service: military and security services, academic staff, the judiciary, and bodies with their own regulations. Before relying on any rule here, first confirm whether the employee falls under the Civil Service Law or a special regime, since a special regime can change the procedure, the competent authority and the consequence of absence.

For negative decisions inferred from silence, which sometimes arises when a grievance against an abandonment decision goes unanswered, see our article on government silence and implied refusal.

Substantive Rules

1. Excused absence versus abandonment

Absence in public employment means failing to attend at the required times. It comes in kinds: absence with prior permission, such as approved leave; absence with an acceptable excuse presented later, such as sudden illness proven by an accredited medical report, or force majeure that prevented the employee from notifying the authority in time; and absence with neither permission nor excuse. The first two do not, in principle, carry disciplinary liability, although the days may be deducted from leave balances or treated according to their nature. The third is the workplace violation that may reach the level of abandonment.

Abandonment is not simply a few days of absence. It is unauthorised, continuous absence showing that the employee has in fact left the job. It has a material element, actual absence for the period set by the applicable texts, and a mental element, the lack of any legitimate excuse and persistence after the employee knows he must return. If either is missing the label does not fit: someone absent through proven illness has not abandoned the job, and someone who never properly received a warning cannot be treated like someone who ignored it deliberately.

The administration and the courts also distinguish continuous absence from intermittent absence. Repeated scattered days of absence may give rise to disciplinary liability for breaching working hours, but in principle they do not support a deemed resignation, since that mechanism targets continuous abandonment. An employee told that the total of scattered absences justifies ending service should check how abandonment is defined in the regulations that apply to him.

2. Deemed resignation and dismissal are two different things

People often mix the terms, but an administrative decision is judged by its substance and not by the name the authority gave it. There are two routes:

• Deeming the employee to have resigned: an administrative step based on the inference that an employee who stays away continuously despite a warning has impliedly expressed a wish to leave. It is not strictly a penalty, so disputes centre on whether its conditions were met, chiefly the warning and the absence of an excuse.
• Disciplinary dismissal: a penalty imposed after disciplinary proceedings that respect the familiar guarantees: informing the employee of the charges, allowing him to defend himself, a real investigation, and a reasoned decision by the competent authority. Serious abandonment can be a ground for it if the authority chooses this route.

The practical difference is large. If the authority takes the deemed resignation route, its conditions are open to challenge. If it takes the disciplinary route, it must satisfy every disciplinary safeguard, and the employee may argue that the authority sidestepped those safeguards by calling a de facto penalty a resignation. Financial and pension consequences may also differ. So the first task in any defence is to pin down the characterisation: what did the authority actually do, and did it give the employee what that route requires?

3. The warning is an essential condition

The settled approach is that the grave consequence of abandonment does not attach until the employee has been warned in writing, notified at his known address by a means that ensures he learns of it. The warning has two parts: a call to resume work, and a notice that continued absence will lead to his being deemed to have resigned or to the termination of his service. Its purpose is to protect the employee from losing his post without knowing, to give him a chance to put things right or give his excuse, and to reveal his true intention: did he mean to leave, or did circumstances beyond his control keep him away?

Several practical questions commonly arise:

• Valid notification: a warning sent to an outdated address that the authority itself failed to update does not take effect against an employee who never learned of it. The authority generally bears the burden of showing it notified him by its recognised means.
• Clear content: a warning that asks for a return without stating the consequence of continuing may not serve its purpose, since it does not alert the employee that his post is at risk.
• A reasonable opportunity: what matters is that the employee actually knows and is given a sensible period to respond. A decision issued before such a period could elapse empties the warning of value.
• Impossibility of notice: where the employee is abroad or somewhere notice cannot reach, the authority's claim that he knew is open to challenge, as are the alternative means it used and whether they sufficed.

4. Investigation and the right to be heard

The general principles of administrative action and the guarantees of public employment imply that an employee whose service is to be ended because of an alleged violation should be able to defend himself. Where the matter is purely disciplinary, investigation and a hearing are guarantees that may not be skipped, as we explained in our article on penalties without investigation. In a deemed resignation the warning and the chance to state an excuse stand in for part of that guarantee, but they do not relieve the authority of genuinely considering the excuses the employee puts forward before it decides.

In practice, if the employee hands in an excuse before the decision or just after it, such as a medical certificate or a document showing a force majeure event, the authority must examine it properly and, if it rejects it, explain why. Ignoring it without discussion exposes the decision to annulment for inadequate reasoning or failure to verify the facts. An employee should not wait for the decision to give his excuse for the first time, but a late excuse does not lose its legal value if it is genuine and the authority deals with it.

5. Acceptable excuses and how to prove them

The legislator has not set a rigid list. Administrative and judicial practice treats an acceptable excuse as one that truly prevents performing the work or notifying the authority, assessed on the facts. The main kinds are:

• Illness: proven by a medical report from an accredited body stating the condition and the period of incapacity. The official medical procedures for sick leave generally count, so a private clinic's note may not be accepted without referral to the competent medical committee. An employee is not required to complete every formality if the illness itself prevented it, but must do so as soon as the obstacle ends.
• Force majeure: a serious personal accident, the death of a close relative, detention, a public disaster, or an emergency abroad that prevented return. The burden lies on the person asserting it, with documents: accident report, death certificate, travel records, official correspondence.
• Legal impediment: where the employee was held by lawful authority, the effect of the absence is assessed under the law governing such situations, and he is not treated as someone who stayed away by choice.
• The authority's own fault: for instance transferring or seconding him without proper notice, stopping his pay or barring him from the workplace so that he believed the relationship had ended. This may overlap with a challenge to the transfer itself, discussed in our article on arbitrary transfer or secondment.

A practical rule: having an excuse is not enough; it must be communicated and proven. An employee who fell ill and did not notify his employer does not necessarily benefit fully from the illness, though later proof may cover the period depending on the authority's and the judge's assessment. The safest course is to notify the supervisor in writing or by a traceable means on the first day, then follow with the document at the earliest opportunity.

If the absence stems from a long illness that left the employee unable to do the job, a different route may apply altogether: medical unfitness, which ends service with rights and safeguards, explained in our article on termination for medical unfitness. The gap between the two can be the gap between losing a post punitively and leaving it with full entitlements, so rely on the right route.

6. Who may issue the decision and when it becomes final

A decision deeming an employee resigned or ending service must come from the authority competent by law. A decision from an incompetent body is defective for lack of competence even if its facts are right. It must be in writing, show its reasons and facts, and be communicated to the person concerned in a way that lets him know of it and challenge it. A verbal instruction or circular heard second-hand is not necessarily a final, challengeable decision; what counts is a decision actually issued by the competent official that affects the employee's legal position.

One further point is the timing of the effect: does service end from the first day of absence or from the date of the decision? That depends on whether the decision is seen as declaring an earlier fact or creating a new position, and on the applicable regulations. Views can differ, and we do not settle it here; it is for the judge to decide in each case. It matters in practice because it determines whether the days between the start of absence and the decision count as service, and therefore the amount of entitlements.

7. Effect on entitlements

• Salary: pay is due for days actually worked up to the start of the absence; for unjustified days the starting point is no pay without work. If an excuse is established or the decision annulled, the position changes.
• Leave balances: depend on the service regulations and the nature of the termination, under the Civil Service Law and its regulations.
• Insurance and pension rights: governed by Social Security Law No. 61 of 1976, depending on contribution length and the reason service ended. Some insurance entitlements may be payable despite the end of service if conditions are met, while others may be lost depending on the reason. The employee should check his exact position with the Public Institution for Social Security soon after the decision and not wait for the end of litigation.
• Effect of annulment: if the Administrative Circuit annuls the decision, the employee returns to his post from the date of the annulled decision, and the authority must regularise his position, which extends to entitlements and seniority as the judgment and law provide.
• Compensation: the employee may claim compensation for direct harm caused by a defective decision under the general rules of liability, a matter within the Administrative Circuit. It depends on proof of fault, damage and the link between them, and the amount is for the judge.

We give no figures, since each case has its own calculation depending on salary, grade and period; the official statement of entitlements is the most accurate reference.

8. Grievance, then an annulment action

The employee has two successive routes: first, writing to the authority itself asking it to withdraw or amend the decision (the administrative grievance), and second, an annulment action before the Administrative Circuit. A grievance has three benefits: it gives the authority a chance to correct its own mistake without litigation, it reveals its position and reasons, and it may affect the running of the time limit depending on the law. It should be in writing, dated, addressed to the competent body, delivered with proof of receipt, identify the decision, and attach documents supporting the excuse and defences.

If the authority rejects the grievance expressly, or stays silent, silence may be treated as a rejection under the rules on negative decisions, as explained in our article on government silence. The annulment action is then filed by a petition stating the decision challenged, the grounds and the employee's requests. A request to suspend execution can accompany it where urgency and serious grounds are present, a matter assessed case by case. The Circuit hears the case under the prescribed procedure, and its judgment may be appealed to the competent appellate body under the law.

Grounds in these cases usually revolve around: lack of competence; defects of form and procedure such as the missing warning; violation of law such as treating a justified absence as abandonment; error of fact such as a wrong start date or length of absence; and abuse of power, for example where the decision was retaliation for a dispute. The court may ask about the excuse, so the file must be ready before filing.

Principles of the Court of Cassation

The jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, together with that of the Administrative Circuit, has settled on a set of principles that govern these disputes. We state them in their general substance:

• An administrative decision is judged by its true nature and not by the label the authority put on it; if it is in substance a disciplinary penalty, disciplinary safeguards apply even if it was called a deemed resignation.
• An implied resignation is not presumed from absence alone; it requires the conditions set by law and regulations, foremost a valid warning, absence of an acceptable excuse and proof of continuous abandonment.
• The administrative judge may review the accuracy of the facts underlying a decision and the soundness of their legal characterisation; discretionary power gives no shelter where the facts are untrue or unsupported by the papers.
• The burden of proving the absence, the warning and its notification lies on the authority, which keeps the personnel file; the employee must prove the excuse he relies on.
• A medical excuse supported by a recognised medical document removes the character of abandonment from the period of illness, and the authority may refer it to the competent medical body if serious doubt arises, but may not discard it without justification.
• The time limit for an annulment action is a matter of public order that the court raises of its own motion, and missing it shields the decision even if flawed, save for a decision so defective that it is treated as non-existent.

Methodological note: we have deliberately avoided citing appeal numbers or judgment dates, since precise citation requires the full text and facts of each judgment; these principles are stated in their generally settled form. When preparing a statement of claim, principles should be drawn from primary sources and matched to the facts. Application may vary by the regulation that applies and the nature of the authority.

Practical Steps and Documents

The order we recommend for an employee who learns his service has ended, or is at risk, because of absence:

• Ask for an official copy of the decision and its reasons. A defence should not rest on what was said orally. If the authority refuses, ask in writing and keep proof of the request; its refusal can matter to when time starts running and to how the case is viewed.
• Gather your personnel file: appointment decision, latest pay statement and grade, attendance record, leave balance, any earlier notices, and anything connected with a transfer or secondment.
• Document the excuse: medical reports, hospital admission notices, death certificates, travel records, accident reports, and copies of messages. If you notified your supervisor by email or text, keep the originals; they are electronic evidence recognised under the Electronic Transactions Law No. 20 of 2014.
• Pin down the warning: was one sent, to what address, when, did you receive it, and was it clear about the consequence? This is the most important point of the defence, so ask the authority for a copy of the warning and proof of its delivery.
• File the grievance in writing with the competent body, identifying the decision and asking for withdrawal, with documents and proof of delivery. Do not wait indefinitely for an answer, since the time limit keeps running; calculate it from the statutory text and from the date you actually learned of or were served with the decision.
• File the action within the time limit before the Administrative Circuit with a petition stating the decision, grounds and requests, and request suspension of execution where urgent. It is best handled by a lawyer admitted before the competent court.
• Check with the social security authority on your insurance position after the decision so that no right or deadline linked to pension or lump sum is missed.
• Do not ignore a chance to return. If the authority has opened the door to return after the warning, take it and record your return and its reason; returning before the decision can change the whole picture.

The litigation file should include: the challenged decision, the grievance with proof of submission and the authority's reply or silence, personnel documents, excuse documents, the warning if any, a statement of entitlements and insurance, and the correct service details of the authority. Our article on reports of absence from work in Kuwait explains how to handle the consequences of a formal absence report, useful where the authority filed one before the decision.

Hypothetical Cases

Case One: an ill employee who did not notify the authority

An employee in a ministry fell seriously ill and was hospitalised for some time. He did not notify his department because his phone was off and his family did not know the notification procedure. Later he received a decision deeming him resigned. The defence has two limbs: the absence was not without excuse, since he was ill as the medical reports show, and the authority never sent him a valid warning before deciding. Hospital records are direct proof of the excuse, and the decision is exposed to annulment if the excuse is proven and the warning is missing. He should file a grievance with his documents immediately and not wait.

Case Two: an employee who stopped attending after a dispute

An employee quarrelled with his manager and stopped attending in protest, with no leave request or formal complaint. The department sent a warning to his registered address, he actually received it, and he did not respond. A decision ending his service followed. His position is weak if his knowledge of the warning is established and no excuse exists, since the absence was voluntary. Even so, he can still review the regularity of the procedure: was the decision issued by someone with authority, did the authority characterise the facts properly, and was the dispute with the manager the result of provable abuse that explains his stance? If he still wants the job, settling his position with the administration before the decision, not after, is faster and cheaper than litigation.

Case Three: an employee abroad who could not return

An employee travelled abroad for an urgent family matter and informed her department by phone. A force majeure event then prevented her return. The authority sent a warning to her address in Kuwait, which she did not receive because she was abroad, and then issued the decision. The appropriate defence is proof of the force majeure with documents, that she never actually learned of the warning, and that the intent to leave the job was absent since she had told her department and tried to return. Still, matters are weighed on the papers: the judge looks at good faith and at her conduct before and after, and the specific rules on travel and special leave should be reviewed.

Quick Comparison

• Absence with permission or approved leave: no liability and no effect on service; governed by leave rules.
• Absence with a legitimate excuse later proven: not abandonment if the excuse is established; the days may be charged to leave balance or treated at the authority's assessment.
• Intermittent absence without excuse: a disciplinary violation that may justify a penalty after investigation, but in principle not a deemed resignation.
• Continuous unexcused absence after a valid warning: allows the authority to take what the texts provide, deeming resignation or ending service; the employee can still challenge to test whether the conditions were met.
• Continuous absence without a warning: a decision ending service or deeming resignation is exposed to annulment for a basic procedural defect.
• Disciplinary dismissal: requires accountability, investigation, a right of defence and a reasoned decision from the competent authority; it differs in safeguards and consequences from a deemed resignation.
• Termination for medical unfitness: a separate route with its own controls and rights; it cannot be used in place of a finding of abandonment.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is every unauthorised absence abandonment of work?

No. Unauthorised absence is a workplace violation that may bring disciplinary liability, but the abandonment that supports a deemed resignation is continuous, unexcused absence that shows the job has been left, and it requires the period and warning set by the texts. The distinction is basic to any defence.

Can the authority deem me resigned without a warning?

As a rule, a written warning is an essential safeguard before the grave consequence of abandonment. If the file has no valid warning served on the employee, or one unclear in content, the decision is exposed to annulment for a procedural defect. The authority bears the burden of proving the warning and its notification.

The warning went to an old address I never updated. What then?

It is for the judge to assess on the facts. If the employee failed to update his address, some fault may be attributed to him; if the authority knew his current address or another recognised means of contact and did not use it, it may be found not to have done enough to notify him. It turns on the documents in your file.

What excuses are normally accepted?

Illness proven by an accredited medical report, force majeure that prevented attendance or notification, a legal impediment, and the authority's own fault. Each is assessed on its facts and proof; a bare claim without evidence is not enough.

Must I notify my employer if I am ill?

Yes, as soon as possible and by a means that leaves a record, followed by the medical document. Failing to notify may weaken reliance on the excuse even if the illness was real, but if the illness itself prevented notification, that is an excuse in its own right.

Is a deemed resignation different from a disciplinary dismissal?

Yes. A deemed resignation rests on an inference of leaving after a warning, while a disciplinary dismissal is a penalty requiring accountability, investigation and a right of defence. The employee can argue that a decision is in substance a penalty even if the authority called it a deemed resignation, so that disciplinary safeguards apply.

How do I file a grievance?

By a dated written request to the competent body that identifies the decision, sets out your excuse and asks for withdrawal, with documents and proof of delivery. Check from the statute in force how a grievance affects the time limit, and do not rely on the grievance alone without tracking the deadline.

Where do I challenge a decision ending my service?

Before the Administrative Circuit of the competent court under Law No. 20 of 1981, by an annulment action. A compensation claim can be joined or filed separately, with a request to suspend execution where there is urgency.

Does filing the case automatically suspend the decision?

No. Filing does not by itself suspend the decision; you must request suspension and persuade the court that the grounds are serious and the matter urgent, which is for the court to assess.

Am I owed salary for the days of absence?

The starting point is that pay is for work, so no pay is due for unjustified absence. If the excuse is proven or the decision annulled, the position changes according to the judgment, the authority's assessment and the regulations.

Will I lose my pension if I am deemed resigned?

That depends on Social Security Law No. 61 of 1976, your contribution period and the reason service ended. It cannot be assumed that the right is lost, nor that it survives, in every case; check your own position with the competent institution and consider the effect of annulment if granted.

What if I return after the warning but before the decision?

Returning in response to a warning before the decision weakens the basis for a deemed resignation, since it negates the inference of leaving. Disciplinary liability for the earlier absence may remain if there was no excuse, but it differs from termination of service.

Does an amicable settlement with the administration help?

Often it does. Approaching the administration with your excuse and documents before the decision, or asking it to withdraw the decision after, can resolve the matter without litigation. Record everything in writing and never postpone watching the statutory deadline while waiting for a settlement.

Conclusion

Abandonment of work in public employment is where functional liability meets procedural safeguards, and it is not enough to say that the employee was absent. The right questions are whether the absence is proven, whether it was with or without excuse, whether the employee was properly warned, whether the decision came from someone with authority, whether the authority labelled it correctly, and whether the challenge was brought in time. Those questions decide the case.

Three mistakes hurt employees most: delaying notice and proof of the excuse, neglecting the grievance and the action until the deadline passes, and relying on oral complaints instead of documented written communication. For authorities, the most common causes of annulment are a missing warning or a defective service of it, failure to consider the excuse offered, and mischaracterising the decision.

If you face a decision deeming you resigned or ending your service, start by obtaining the decision and collecting the proof of your excuse, count the deadline from the first day, and do not put it off. Related disputes, such as promotion claims, are covered in our article on a junior colleague promoted ahead of you, since many employees face more than one administrative decision at once.

Legal Notice

This article provides general information about Kuwaiti law. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. The rules described are subject to legislative amendment and to judicial application to the facts of each case, and procedures differ according to the regulations that apply to the employee's authority.

If a decision has been issued deeming you resigned or ending your service for absence, the team at Yumnaak Law Firm studies the decision and the personnel file, prepares the grievance, and files and follows the annulment action before the Administrative Circuit. Reach us through the contact page or book an appointment at the office through appointment booking.