爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT found no merit to the Appellant’s claims that 爆料网DT had failed to make findings on the specific category of misconduct and that she did not receive notice of the specific charge of theft prior to receiving a disciplinary sanction. 爆料网AT held that disciplinary cases were not criminal and that there was no need to give notice of a specific charge of theft because the charge against the Appellant was taking, without authorisation, a staff member’s property. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant did not dispute having taken a bicycle without the owner’s permission, but that she claimed she did not intend to steal it, a claim which 爆料网DT clearly rejected. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s finding, that the facts alleged constituted misconduct, was fully supported by the facts. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly addressed the issue of the proportionality of the disciplinary measure. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant had failed to establish that 爆料网DT made any error of fact or law. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to separate her from service for theft 爆料网DT determined that the only issue before it was the proportionality of the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and with termination indemnities. 爆料网DT concluded that the said disciplinary measure considered some extenuating circumstances as it was not the most severe available, given the serious nature of the established misconduct. 爆料网DT held that the Secretary-General was not legally required to consider the opinions of those who had worked with the Applicant before taking a disciplinary decision. 爆料网DT dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
Judicial review of a disciplinary case requires 爆料网DT to consider the evidence adduced and the procedures utilised in the course of the investigation by the Administration. Disciplinary cases require 爆料网DT to examine whether the facts on which the sanction is based have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. 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 termination is a possible outcome, the misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, which means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.