¹ú²úAV

UNDT noted that the Administration bears the burden of establishing that an alleged misconduct for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member occurred. When termination is a possible outcome, misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, which means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable. Is not the role of the UNDT to conduct a de novo review of the evidence and place itself in the shoes of the decision-maker. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant partook in the misappropriation of the material, which belonged to the Organization, and for which he was responsible, by not reporting its misappropriation and, instead, by accepting the value of the 10 bags of cement. The Tribunal held that the established facts legally amount to misconduct. The Tribunal noted that the Secretary-General has wide discretion in determining the appropriate disciplinary measure. It is only if the sanction appears to be blatantly arbitrary, adopted beyond the limits stated by the respective norms, excessive, abusive, or discriminatory that the judicial review would conclude its unlawfulness and impose a different one. The Tribunal does not find the measure imposed in this case disproportionate.