Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in such a case, where the material facts were not in dispute, no additional investigation was required to establish the misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the investigative and disciplinary process had not been properly conducted and that Mr Ainte¡¯s due process rights had been violated by the absence of an official investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Ainte had not demonstrated that the Secretary-General failed in any other way to observe his due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General was correct in deciding that the established facts amounted to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in certifying his Personal History Profile, Mr. Ainte took responsibility for its veracity and that he was aware any misrepresentation or material omission could result in disciplinary action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Ainte could not argue that he was unaware of the gravity with which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ treats false applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Ainte should have completed the form himself or, at the very least, checked it carefully. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr Ainte¡¯s claim that the termination was disproportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had the discretion to determine the appropriate level of sanction and that termination of a senior official for the very serious misconduct of submitting a false document was not absurd, unlawful, or otherwise disproportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not interfere with the legal exercise of that discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the principle of double jeopardy is a principle of criminal law and was not applicable to the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.