Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ¡± To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to suggest that the Commissioner-General's decision was absurd, arbitrary or tainted by extraneous reasons or bias. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that the Appellant¡¯s conduct in outside activities caused serious reputational damage to the Agency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his appointment for misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that it was highly probable that the Applicant was involved with the group which conducted the armed clashes. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT held that these facts constituted misconduct under the applicable Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Regulations and Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT held that the disciplinary measure of termination with full termination indemnity was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and the sanction was neither absurd nor arbitrary.
Legal Principle(s)
Disciplinary measures imposed by the Agency are within the discretion of the Commissioner-General. It is important for staff not to engage in any outside activities that are incompatible with the proper discharge of their duties with the Agency, as they can impact the integrity and reputation of the Organisation. The appellant has the burden on appeal to establish that the impugned judgment is defective and may not repeat on appeal arguments that failed before the first instance tribunal. The appellant must demonstrate that the first instance tribunal has committed an error of fact or law warranting the intervention by the Appeals Tribunal.