2022-Ģ��ƵAT-1222

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT Judgment. Regarding the deduction of a sum of money from his separation benefits, Ģ��ƵAT agreed that this claim was not first submitted for decision review. Regarding his separation from service without termination indemnity, Ģ��ƵAT also found no error in the Ģ��ƵRWA DT Judgment. The Tribunal agreed with the Ģ��ƵRWA DT that the bank statement did not contain the correct amount and that the invoices he submitted did not relate to genuine purchases. Ģ��ƵAT was satisfied that: (i) the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing evidence; (ii) the established facts amounted to misconduct; (iii) the sanction was proportionate to the offense; and (iv) the staff member��s due process rights were respected. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

An investigation into allegations of corruption concluded that there was sufficient evidence that a staff member submitted false accounts, committed fraud by false representation and stole money from the school budget. After he was formally charged with misconduct, the staff member responded to the Charge Letter. Thereafter, the Administration imposed the disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity. The Administration also deducted a sum of money from the staff member��s separation benefits as reimbursement to the Agency. The staff member appealed to the Ģ��ƵRWA Dispute Tribunal, which dismissed his application finding that the imposition of the disciplinary measure was lawful. Regarding the deduction of a sum of money from his separation benefits, the Ģ��ƵRWA DIspute tribunal noted that the staff member had not raised this claim at the decision review level. The Ģ��ƵRWA Dispute Tribunal agreed with the conclusions of the investigation that: (i) the staff member submitted an edited bank statement in an attempt to conceal his fraud, and (ii) he also submitted false invoices as genuine purchases, and the vendors declined their authenticity.

Legal Principle(s)

In disciplinary cases, the tribunals have to examine: (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure is based have been established (by a preponderance of evidence, but where termination is a possible sanction, the facts must be established by clear and convincing evidence); (ii) whether the established facts amount to misconduct; (iii) whether the sanction is proportionate to the offense; and (iv) whether the staff member��s due process rights have been respected

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

The appeal is dismissed, and the Ģ��ƵRWA DT Judgment is affirmed.

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Ahmad Mudardas

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement