2012-��AT-237

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that the complaints against the Appellant were very serious and intolerable for any employer. ��AT held that ��DT had correctly concluded that the case against the Appellant stood substantiated and corroborated and the evidence sufficiently supported the charge of improperly soliciting and receiving money from local people in exchange for their recruitment and service as �� staff. ��AT held that during the teleconference the Appellant had produced two impostors as witnesses, who testified that they had lied to the investigators and made false allegations against the Appellant. ��AT held that the credible and reliable evidence of the witnesses and the contemptuous conduct of the Appellant could only lead to the conclusion that the Appellant was guilty of the charge of soliciting and accepting bribes. ��AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ��DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to separate him from service without notice or compensation in lieu. ��DT found that the evidence sufficiently supported the charges against the Applicant and was credible and properly acted upon. ��DT rejected the application and awarded costs against the Applicant by recommending that the Administration withhold all final entitlements due to him for the purpose of satisfying his legally established obligations. The Applicant appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

Left deliberately blank

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT 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

Bagula

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement