2024-Ģ��ƵAT-1460

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Ģ��ƵDT had appropriately relied on the clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the staff member had submitted a medical insurance claim to Cigna for medical services that had never been provided.

The Ģ��ƵAT held that the evidence established that it was highly probable that the staff member had made the misrepresentation to Cigna with the intent to deceive and that his actions had been potentially prejudicial to the Ģ��ƵDP which was subject to any loss from undue reimbursements.

The Ģ��ƵAT found that the staff member��s certification to Cigna of the correctness of the information had been false and that the Ģ��ƵDT had not erred in concluding that even if the staff member had not himself cooperated in the forgery and it had been committed unbeknownst to him, he had assumed full responsibility for the improper use of the documents.

The Ģ��ƵAT was of the view that the Ģ��ƵDT had not erred in finding that the sanction had been proportionate to the offence.

The Ģ��ƵAT held that the staff member had not discharged his onus to show improper motive and that not interviewing any witnesses identified by him during the investigation had not been a violation of his due process rights, given that he had not given any relevant basis for the witnesses to be interviewed.

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT��s Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A former staff member contested the disciplinary decision to separate him from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnities, for having engaged in entitlement fraud by submitting forged documents for reimbursement for medical services that were not received.

In Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2023/037, the Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application.

The staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

When a statement is not made under oath or affirmation, there must be some other indicia of reliability or truthfulness for the statement to have probative value.

In order to establish that the Ģ��ƵDT erred, it is necessary to establish that the evidence, if dismissed, would have led to different findings of facts and changed the outcome of the case.

Any form of dishonest conduct compromises the necessary relationship of trust between the employer and employee and will generally warrant dismissal.

A discretionary administrative decision can be challenged only on the basis that the Administration had not acted fairly, justly or transparently with the staff member or was motivated by bias, prejudice or improper motive. The staff member has the burden of proving that such factors played a role in the administrative decision.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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

Al Waleed Abdelrahman Abdrabou

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement