Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it three decisions of the Conciliation Committee: the first regarding the establishment of two inquiry panels, Panel One and Panel Two; the second in respect of the decision to place the Appellant on administrative leave with pay, and the third concerning the decision to separate her from service. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not admit to the case file two motions submitted by the Appellant subsequent to the issuance of judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-531, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the documents that she sought to adduce would not assist Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT with its consideration on the merits. By way of preliminary observation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ICJ Registrar correctly determined that the issues raised in a complaint against the Appellant were sufficient to give him reason to believe that misconduct may have occurred and thereby justified the decision to commence a fact-finding investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis for the Appellant¡¯s complaints regarding Panel One and that the ICJ Registrar had applied ST/SGB/2008/5 when he constituted the Panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ICJ Registrar breached ST/SGB/2008/5 when he appointed individuals from outside the ICJ to conduct the investigation (Panel Two). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that where an investigation is conducted by unauthorised persons, the investigation report and its findings cannot be taken into account. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the decision to place her on administrative leave while the investigation was ongoing, noting that as the Appellant did not show that she was prejudiced by being placed on administrative leave. With regard to the disciplinary procedure, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not notified in writing of the written charges against her and that specifically, the sending of the reports of the two investigation panels to her was not the same as charging her with misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that absent such charges, the Appellant was not put on notice of the possible misconduct which she was considered to have committed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s termination was legally unsustainable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of the Conciliation Committee that the termination was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement or, as an alternative to reinstatement, the award of two years¡¯ net base salary.