Judgment No. 1977
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
"The complainant on several occasions filed claims and received reimbursement for duty travel in business class while he had in fact travelled in economy class, pocketing the difference. [...] There is no evidence to support the complainant's contention that this fraud was condoned or approved by the Agency and [...] his suggestion that his fraudulent practice was widespread amongst other Agency personnel, which is likewise not supported by any evidence at all, is wholly irrelevant: even if all the Agency's officers had been defrauding it in the same manner as the complainant, that would constitute no excuse for him. Where several persons commit the same crime, the guilt of one is not lessened by that of the others."
evidence; practice; travel expenses; official travel; misconduct; serious misconduct; conduct; fitness for international civil service
The complainant refused to avail himself of his right to respond to allegations during the internal investigations of his serious misconduct. "In these circumstances, the complainant's request for a hearing is manifestly unjustified. The complainant has offered no evidence at any stage of the proceedings against him, therefore, such a hearing could not possibly add anything to the record before the Tribunal."
evidence; oral proceedings; right to reply; misconduct; serious misconduct; refusal; right
"[The complainant] argues that because the Tribunal found in Judgment 1763 that the Director of the Division of Personnel should not have both collected evidence at the investigation stage and sat as chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board at the deliberative stage, the consequence must be that any evidence collected in that flawed process must be forever tainted [...] The complainant is wrong. Judgment 1763 did not find that the investigation process was itself flawed but made it clear that the manner in which it had been carried out in part by a person who was also Chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board vitiated the latter's deliberative functions. The evidence itself remained both admissible and relevant and as long as both the [Office of Internal Audit and Evaluation Support] and the ad hoc panel offered the complainant full opportunity to comment on and respond to it, which they did, the complainant has no legitimate grounds for objecting thereto."
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1763
evidence; admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; inquiry; disciplinary procedure; conflict of interest; right to be heard; procedural rights during investigation; investigation; evidence during investigation
"The complainant asserts that the Ad Hoc Panel failed to give reasons for its opinion because it did not give a reasoned reply to his assertion that it had been improperly constituted. The argument is ill conceived. The obligation of a disciplinary body to give reasons for its opinions is limited to the disciplinary matters remitted to it. The reason is so that the person subjected to a disciplinary measure may know why a penalty is being imposed upon him and may, if he thinks appropriate, appeal against the decision. But an administrative body, such as the Ad Hoc Panel, has no power and hence no obligation to decide in any definitive way upon its own remit. Of course, it must listen attentively to any objections that are made to the effect that it is exceeding or is about to exceed its powers and must take a position on such objections by either continuing to act or changing its course of action. But in the final analysis, the decision as to whether such a body is acting within its powers or beyond them must lie elsewhere and a person in the complainant's position suffers no prejudice from its failure to give reasons for declining to accede to his objections."
duty to substantiate decision; advisory body; report; misconduct; disciplinary procedure; misuse of authority; purpose; composition of the internal appeals body
"The complainant's contention that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the offence is wholly without merit. He defrauded his employer of substantial sums of money in circumstances that left no room for doubt that he both knew what he was doing and knew that it was wrong. When his actions came under suspicion, he falsified documents in an attempt to justify himself. His actions fell far below the standards expected of any employee let alone the high standards required of an international civil servant. the penalty of dismissal was amply warranted."
misrepresentation; proportionality; termination of employment; misconduct; serious misconduct; conduct; fitness for international civil service; disciplinary measure