爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Bastet. 爆料网AT held that the disciplinary measure was regularly adopted by an individual properly vested with the delegated authority to make that decision and that therefore, the imposition of the disciplinary measure was valid and its rescission as ordered by 爆料网DT had to be vacated. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal from the Secretary-General, accepting the argument that Staff Rule 10. 1(c) expressly provided that the authority to impose disciplinary measures was vested in the Secretary-General or officials with delegated authority and did not require that such delegation took any specific form. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General had validly delegated the powers outlined in Staff Rule 10. 1(c) in favour of the Under-Secretary-General (USG) for Management. 爆料网AT held that any adequate mechanism can be used for the purpose of delegation, provided that it contains a clear transmission of authority to the grantee concerning the matter being delegated. 爆料网AT held that, absent any express requirement of prior publication, the delegation became effective upon issuance and may be known by staff members and other departments of offices once it is exercised. 爆料网AT did not share the view of 爆料网DT that the delegation needed to be officially published since it inserted a formal exigency not required by the norms. 爆料网AT noted that the delegation of authority was attributed to a functional post and not to the individual personal holding that post, therefore in the absence of the USG for Management, the authority could be exercised by the Officer-in-Charge (OIC). 爆料网AT rejected Mr. Bastet’s argument that disciplinary measures may only be taken by the USG for Management personally. 爆料网AT did not concur with 爆料网DT on the invalidity of the practice of designating OICs. 爆料网AT held that the impugned decision was adopted by a competent authority and could not be considered invalid for that reason. 爆料网AT found no reason to depart from the conclusions of the thorough judicial review conducted by 爆料网DT with respect to the merits of the disciplinary procedure, specifically that Mr Bastet could not ignore that he was officially the legal owner of the apartment and submitted a lease agreement to obtain rental subsidy without disclosing that fact. 爆料网AT held that the fact the staff member did not disclose the situation at the time of claiming a monetary benefit was enough to constitute misconduct. 爆料网AT held that Mr Bastet’s appeal did not satisfy the burden arising from the 爆料网AT Statute as he failed to demonstrate that the impugned judgment was based on an error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT allowed the Secretary-General’s appeal; vacated the rescission ordered in the 爆料网DT judgment; affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment with respect to the merits of the impugned decision and its order for no compensation; and dismissed Mr Bastet’s appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Bastet contested the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal from service and recovery of his rental subsidy payments for knowingly submitting inaccurate claims for rental subsidy allowance, certifying the accuracy of such claims and receiving the allowance, to which he was not entitled. 爆料网DT held that, while the misconduct was established by the facts and therefore the dismissal could be justified, the decision was unlawful on the basis that it was not taken by the proper authority.
Legal Principle(s)
Any adequate mechanism can be used for the purpose of delegation, provided that it contains a clear transmission of authority to the grantee concerning the matter being delegated. Compensation cannot be granted when there is no breach of a staff member’s rights or administrative wrongdoing in need of repair.