¹ś²śAV

UNDT/2021/051

UNDT/2021/051, Bamba

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules. There was evidence that the totality of the circumstances, including mitigating factors such as the Applicantā€™s long service with the Organization and her admission, albeit only after the Organizationā€™s discovery of her fraud, were considered in keeping with set principles. There was basis for the assertion that the practice of the Secretary-General in disciplinary matters shows that measures at the stricter end of the spectrum have normally been imposed by the Organization in cases involving falsification of documentation to obtain entitlements, absent compelling mitigating circumstances. The sanction was proportionate to the offence and lawful thus there was no basis for interfering with the decision makerā€™s discretion. The alleged translation mistakes and discrepancies between her OIOS interview and the transcript thereafter produced didnā€™t have a material impact on the established facts that the Applicant knowingly and wilfully misrepresented her pregnancy in order to fraudulently obtain a medical certificate attesting to her pregnancy and subsequently used that certificate to claim a benefit to which she was not entitled. The alleged translation mistakes didnā€™t have a material impact on either her due process rights or on the established facts relevant to the proportionality of the sanction imposed. The Tribunal found that that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the misconduct complained of, and that the established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules, further that the sanction was proportionate to the offence and was therefore lawful. The Tribunal also found that there were no due process violations in the investigation and in the disciplinary process leading up to the disciplinary sanction against the Applicant.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant challenged the Respondentā€™s decision to dismiss her from service.

Legal Principle(s)

The Tribunalā€™s role in disciplinary cases is to examine: a. whether the facts on which the sanction is based have been established; b. whether the established facts qualify as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules; and c. whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. Part of the test in reviewing decisions imposing sanctions is whether due process rights were observed. The Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member occurred. When termination is a possible outcome, the Administration must prove the facts underlying the alleged misconduct by ā€œclear and convincing evidenceā€, which requires more than a preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt, and ā€œmeans that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probableā€. The proportionality principle limits discretion by requiring an administrative action not to be more excessive than is necessary for obtaining the desired result. The purpose of proportionality is to avoid an imbalance between the adverse and beneficial effects of an administrative decision and to encourage the administrator to consider both the need for the action and the possible use of less drastic or oppressive means to accomplish the desired end. The essential elements of proportionality are balance, necessity and suitability. The Secretary-General has wide discretion in determining the appropriate disciplinary measure, due deference should be shown to the Secretary-Generalā€™s disciplinary decisions, it is not the role of the Tribunal to consider the correctness of the choice made by the Secretary-General amongst the various courses of action open to him, and that the Tribunal is more concerned with how the decision-maker reached the impugned decision, not the merits of the decision.

Outcome
Dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
Bamba
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type