爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT noted that V01 had not been placed under oath before giving her interview and that she did not sign the transcribed version of her interview statement. 爆料网AT held that V01’s transcribed statement, in which she said that the Appellant had raped her and engaged in sex with her, was neither reliable nor trustworthy; it was solely hearsay and insufficient, by itself, to prove the charge that the Appellant engaged in sexual activity with a minor. 爆料网AT held that similarly the other written documents were replete with hearsay and multiple hearsays and were neither trustworthy nor sufficient to prove that the Appellant had sex with a minor (V01). 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had reached the erroneous conclusion that the Appellant had engaged in sexual activity with V01 by ignoring the well-established jurisprudence of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had failed to place the burden on the Administration to prove the facts underlying the discipline and, instead, shifted the burden to the staff member to disprove the facts. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had failed to apply the proper standard of proof which was clear and convincing evidence. 爆料网AT held that neither preponderance of the evidence nor an inference amounted to clear and convincing evidence. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, reversed the 爆料网DT judgment, rescinded the decision to summarily dismiss the Appellant and ordered that he should be reinstated or, in lieu thereof, he should be awarded compensation in the amount of one year’s net base salary.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to summarily dismiss him. 爆料网DT issued judgment No. 爆料网DT/2013/009, in which it determined that: (1) it was proven that the Applicant had engaged in a sexual relationship with V01; (2) it was not proven that the Applicant had engaged in sexual relationships with beneficiaries of 爆料网 assistance; and (3) it was proven that the Applicant had engaged in the unofficial and unauthorised use of 爆料网 vehicles, as he had conceded. 爆料网DT concluded that the Applicant had sexually exploited and abused V01 (a minor) in violation of ST/SGB/2003/13, paragraphs 3. 2(a) and (b), which constituted serious misconduct, and summary dismissal was a proportionate penalty for such serious misconduct. 爆料网DT upheld the summary dismissal of the Applicant and dismissed his application.
Legal Principle(s)
The Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member occurred. When the termination or dismissal of a staff member is a possible sanction, the misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, which means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.