爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred by considering as mitigating factors the recommendation of Mr Jaffa’s immediate supervisors that his actions warranted a reprimand and the fact that Mr Jaffa continued to perform for two further years (with positive reviews). 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in not attaching sufficient importance to the fact that Mr Jaffa held a position of trust as a Finance Assistant. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General had not overlooked relevant mitigating factors in imposing the sanction of separation from service. 爆料网AT held that it could not be said that the sanction of separation with compensation in lieu of notice and with termination indemnity was unfair or disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences. 爆料网AT held that the sanction imposed on Mr Jaffa was not unreasonable, absurd or disproportionate and as such, was a reasonable exercise of the Administration’s broad discretion in disciplinary matters. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding the sanction disproportionate and in substituting its opinion for that of the Administration. 爆料网AT allowed the Secretary-General’s appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment, solely with respect to 爆料网DT’s findings regarding the sanction.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Jaffa contested the imposition of the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and with termination indemnity for misconduct in the form of manipulating the payroll system in order to create and receive overpayments on three separate occasions. 爆料网DT found that Mr Jaffa had committed misconduct, but considered the sanction of termination excessive and disproportionate. 爆料网DT ordered rescission of the sanction of termination, reinstatement of the Applicant, Mr Jaffa be subject to demotion with the deferment of promotion, and set compensation in lieu as an alternative to reinstatement and demotion.
Legal Principle(s)
The Secretary-General is vested with the authority to impose the sanction which he considers to be appropriate and such discretion can only be reviewed in cases of obvious absurdity or flagrant arbitrariness.