¹ú²úAV

The Applicant contests the decision dated 10 January 2011 to impose on him the disciplinary measure of demotion of one grade with deferment, for three years, of eligibility for consideration for promotion. He admits to one of the charges against him, to wit, knowingly and willfully accessing the electronic mailbox of a colleague without authorization, but refutes another one. The Applicant contends that the demotion was disproportionate to the admitted offence, in particular in view of its financial impact. The Tribunal however dismisses the claim, finding that the decision to demote the Applicant did not exceed the Respondent’s discretionary power. As regards the second charge, the Tribunal considers that, in view of its finding that the misconduct to which the Applicant admitted was serious enough to justify a demotion, the issue of whether the second charge is sufficiently established has become moot. The Tribunal further finds that the Applicant’s due process rights have been violated because evidence on which the Respondent relied to arrive at the conclusion that the second charge was sufficiently established had not been shared with the Applicant. However, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant did not suffer any harm as a result of the above-mentioned violation and therefore does not award any compensation. On 5 December 2011, after the Dispute Tribunal had raised on its own motion the issue of the legality the three-year ban on promotion and in light of the subsequent findings by the Appeals Tribunal in Yapa 2011-UNAT-168, the Respondent reversed that portion of the disciplinary measure. The Tribunal finds that this is insufficient to repair the harm done to the Applicant and assesses the appropriate compensation at USD10,000.