爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
On the delay before 爆料网DT, 爆料网AT agreed that the delay was unfort爆料网ATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. 爆料网AT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and with termination indemnity was proportionate and lawful. 爆料网AT held that as the Appellant’s actions were not work-related in a strict sense, it would have been better for 爆料网DT to have relied on Staff Regulation 1. 2(a) and 1. 2(f). 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General’s determination that the Appellant’s behaviour amounted to serious misconduct was a reasonable exercise of his discretion. 爆料网AT held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Secretary-General’s discretion to determine that the Appellant’s behaviour rendered him unfit for further service with the Organisation. 爆料网AT held that the main requirements of due process were met and that any other possible procedural irregularities during the disciplinary investigation, such as the 爆料网DT’s decision not to hold an oral hearing, were of no consequence given the kind and amount of evidence proving the misconduct, applying the no-difference principle. 爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s claim for compensation. 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 impose upon him the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and with termination indemnity for misconduct. 爆料网DT found that the material facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were sufficiently established and amounted to sexual harassment, which was serious misconduct, and that the disciplinary sanction was proportionate.
Legal Principle(s)
Only substantial procedural irregularities can render a disciplinary sanction unlawful. The no-difference principle may be applied where a lack or a deficiency in due process is no bar to a fair or reasonable administrative decision or disciplinary action should it appear that better due process would have made no difference.