Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under domestic criminal proceedings than would arise from those under investigation for misconduct pursuant to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s Regulations and Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT could properly determine that the Appellant¡¯s actions constituted misconduct despite his acquittal of the criminal charges brought against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a staff member¡¯s knowing possession of a large amount of a banned drug constituted serious misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a reasonable presumption could be drawn that the Appellant participated in the illegal trade of Tramal based on his possession of a large amount of the drug, which also constituted serious misconduct. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT may properly consider the nature of misconduct vis-¨¤-vis the nature of the staff member¡¯s post in determining whether a sanction is proportionate, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that termination was a proportionate sanction for the Appellant¡¯s misconduct because his post was, in part, to combat drug abuse. With regards to the number of claims by the Appellant of legal or procedural error, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not explain how the alleged errors prejudiced him or violated his due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even assuming arguendo that these errors occurred, none of them would be a ground to reverse the judgment and therefore there was no need for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to address such claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested his termination for misconduct in the form of dealing in Tramal, a drug banned in Gaza. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT dismissed his application.
Legal Principle(s)
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT has a broad discretion to determine the weight to be attached to evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT may properly consider the nature of misconduct vis-¨¤-vis the nature of the staff member¡¯s post in determining whether a sanction is proportionate. For termination, the Administration must prove the facts underlying the alleged misconduct by clear and convincing evidence, which means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable. Misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court.