Judgment No. 1346
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Before suspending an official "there is no question [...] of letting the official have all the written evidence on which the charges against him are to rest. All that need be said here is that the complainant was given clear and accurate information about the disciplinary action his behaviour was deemed to warrant. The conclusion is that there was no breach of due process."
lack of injury; right to reply; staff regulations and rules; disciplinary procedure; organisation's interest
The complainant was dismissed on grounds of serious misconduct. He submits that "the punishment is out of proportion to any offence he may have committed. [...] He is wrong. As the Joint Disciplinary Committee unanimously held, he was guilty of 'wilful and repeated insubordination', had never since shown 'the slightest contrition or change of mind' and had offered 'unacceptable explanations for his behaviour'. The conclusion is that in the circumstances there was nothing disproportionate about the sanction."
advisory body; proportionality; misconduct; staff member's duties; insubordination; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; advisory opinion
The complainant was dismissed for serious misconduct. The complainant does not succeed "in his contention that Interpol's real intent was to abolish his post as system programmer and replace it with one for an operations technician. There is no evidence to bear that out. Even if the organization did mean to reform its computer service, that afforded no grounds for the complainant's disobedience let alone for supposing, as he makes out, that such abolition prompted his dismissal."
lack of evidence; abolition of post; termination of employment; staff member's duties; insubordination; organisation's interest