UNDT/2022/036, TESFAYE
The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant was reckless in his failure to report a fraud which he was aware of. He chose to conceal and abet the perpetration of a fraud. The facts were established to the requisite standard by the Applicant’s own admissions and the evidence on record. The Tribunal held that the established facts clearly constituted misconduct as charged. The elements of the charge of abetting and concealing fraud were established through the evidence. The Applicant who had possession of important knowledge about fraudulent document passing through his office under his supervision failed to report it as was expected of him. He chose to remain silent until the matter became public knowledge. In failing to report, he committed the misconduct of concealing and in the process abetted the fraud. As Team Leader, a senior position, and an international civil servant, he behaved recklessly by abdicating from his obligations in allowing fraud to take place and to be facilitated by his direct supervisee.
The Applicant contested the disciplinary measure imposed on him of a loss of two steps in grade and deferral for two years of eligibility for salary increment for concealing and abetting fraud in that he failed to report the preparation of a backdated Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) pursuant to staff regulation 10.1(a) and staff rules 10.2(a)(ii) and (iii).
In disciplinary cases, the Tribunal is called upon to examine the following: (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure is based have been established (ii) whether the established facts amount to misconduct; (iii) whether the staff member’s due process rights were respected and (iv) whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. The Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member occurred.
The Applicant failed to satisfy the Tribunal that the Administration acted unlawfully in sanctioning him for misconduct. The Tribunal held that the Applicant failed to comply with standards of conduct expected from him as an international civil servant and dismissed the application.