Judgment No. 4461
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to summarily dismiss him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
disciplinary measure; summary dismissal; complaint dismissed
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant alleges that his […] email should be considered as a request for review, by relying on the “duty of care on an organisation which, in relation to the exercise of the right of appeal, obliges the organisation to help a staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of the right” (see, for example, Judgments 2345, consideration 1, and 3754, consideration 11). However, according to these cases, to constitute an appeal the staff member must clearly express her or his intention to contest the decision, notwithstanding that the appeal might be addressed to the wrong authority. In this regard, the Tribunal’s case law has also long held that “for a letter addressed to an organisation to constitute an appeal, it is sufficient that the person concerned clearly expresses therein his or her intention to challenge the decision adversely affecting him or her and that the request thus formulated can be granted in some meaningful way” (see Judgment 3423, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2345, 3423, 3754
Keywords
internal appeal
Consideration 5
Extract:
Since the suspension decision as well as the decision to remove him from his duties had, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal and adverse effect on the complainant, and were not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings, they cannot be considered as mere steps leading to the final decision and, according to the Tribunal’s case law, must themselves be challenged (see, for example, Judgments 1927, consideration 5, 2365, consideration 4, 3035, consideration 10, and 4237, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1927, 2365, 3035, 4237
Keywords
suspension; impugned decision; step in the procedure
Consideration 5
Extract:
According to the consistent case law of the Tribunal, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed. It is equally well settled that the Tribunal will not engage in a determination as to whether the burden of proof has been met, instead, the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact (see, for example, Judgments 2699, consideration 9, 3882, consideration 14, 3649, consideration 14, and 4227, consideration 6). Also, a staff member accused of misconduct is presumed to be innocent (see Judgment 2879, consideration 11) and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgment 2849, consideration 16).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2699, 2849, 2879, 3649, 3882, 4227
Keywords
presumption of innocence; disciplinary measure; standard of proof; role of the tribunal
|
