¹ú²úAV

The Tribunal concluded that there were critical procedural irregularities that rendered the investigation and the contested decision unlawful. Procedural irregularities: The Tribunal concluded that: (i) in the light of the findings of the Inspection Mission, which investigated the same complaints as the Investigation Team, it was an abuse of discretion on the part of the Respondent to establish a second body and labeling it an Investigation Team to carry out the same exercise that had been carried out by the Inspection Mission; (ii) the Investigation Team committed a number of procedural irregularities by failing to apprise the Applicant of the precise allegations against her; by putting words in the mouth of witnesses; by asking highly leading questions; by coming to conclusions in the absence of evidence; by ignoring the testimony and comments of the Applicant; and by sitting on appeal on the findings of the Inspection Mission to justify their conclusions based on the same set facts; and (iii) the charge letter failed to comply with paragraph 6(a) of ST/AI/371 because it did not inform the Applicant of the precise nature of the allegations made by the Complainants or the facts that had been proven to support said allegations. Additionally, the Respondent failed to comply with paragraph 6(b) of ST/AI/371 by not providing the Applicant with copies of the complaints, which formed part of the documentary evidence of the alleged misconduct. Establishment of facts by clear and miconduct: The Tribunal concluded that the procedural irregularities were so egregious that the whole disciplinary process was flawed. Thus, the Tribunal did not consider whether the facts on which the disciplinary measures were based had been established and whether the established facts legally amounted to misconduct.