At this level you are really talking about personal norms. Many things can go wrong and mistakes happen, but good norms protect a person and an organization against deliberate wrongdoing.

If you suspect that you are dealing with this, it is important to guard yourself against what is known as the "Fundamental Attribution Error"^[1]. In simple terms this means that we do have a tendency to judge a person's character when he does something wrong such as: "if Alice saw Bob trip over a rock and fall, Alice might consider Bob to be clumsy or careless (dispositional). If Alice tripped over the same rock herself, she would be more likely to blame the placement of the rock (situational)."

So, was this really careless? Also, investigate if there is a temporary reason why somebody behaved like this in this situation. If this is not there, or the behaviour is recurring, you are dealing with somebody who is placing himself or herself outside (or above) the organization and its rules.

It is important to note that this is really very rare in most professional organizations.

How are you correcting

Situations like this need to be dealt with radically and acutely. The main problem for a lot of organizations is that there are sometimes people who act like this who at the same time have gained a "key" position such as having a lot of expertise or skill in a particular area. This can make the organization waver in dealing with the issue. Often they might have a reasonable explanation for their situation. Another trap is that the organization tries to deal with these situations "reasonably" by measuring their performance or track record. This can be a long road, because they often perform well in certain areas but are just unpredictable and disloyal..... you can't catch me!

The point is it needs to be dealt with cleanly and swiftly. Condoning behaviour like this can pull down the culture in a whole organization, and certainly affects morale.

Examples
Going home	Low-level flypast	Not taking notice	Sleeping well