Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s termination, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA JAB¡¯s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the patient suffered from DM type I and hypertension. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the patient died of a hypoglycemic shock related to an overdose of insulin. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was not involved in the actual treatment of the deceased and that she merely made some changes in the records which had no connection with the patient¡¯s death. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while Area Staff Regulation 9. 1 allows for inefficient staff members, or persons who are corrupt and do not possess the required high level of integrity, to be dismissed, the Appellant¡¯s case did not fall into any of these categories. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly set aside the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision and ordered the Appellant to be re-instated in service, though it ordered an entry be made in her service record about the warning given to her to be careful in the future. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered as an alternative compensation in lieu equivalent to two years' net base pay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal in the aforementioned terms and denied all other forms of relief.