UNDT ordered the applicant to show cause why his appeal against dismissal should not be struck out on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant failed to respond. UNDT found that the order to show cause was properly served on the applicant and that SIU’s investigation produced clear evidence establishing the facts supporting the charges. UNDT further found that there was no procedural irregularity, improper motive, or abuse of power, and that the sanction of summary dismissal was a fair and proportionate response. Outcome: The application was struck out in its...
Rule 101.2(g)
-
Appendix B
3
-
Chapter IV
1
-
Chapter IX
2
-
Chapter VII
1
-
Chapter X
4
-
Chapter XI
1
-
Rule 1.2(h)
2
-
Rule 10.2
3
-
Rule 10.2(a)(ix)
2
-
Rule 10.3(a)
3
-
Rule 10.4(c)
1
-
Rule 10.4b
1
-
Rule 101.1
1
-
Rule 101.2(2)
1
-
Rule 101.2(a)
1
-
Rule 101.2(b)
6
-
Rule 101.2(c)
2
-
Rule 101.2(d)
11
-
Rule 101.2(g)
3
-
Rule 101.2(h)
1
-
Rule 101.4(a)
1
-
Rule 103.13
1
-
Rule 103.20
1
-
Rule 103.21(a)
1
-
Rule 103.24
1
-
Rule 103.24(a)
1
-
Rule 103.7(d)(ii)
1
-
Rule 103.9
2
-
Rule 103.9(a)
1
-
Rule 104.1
1
-
Rule 104.10
1
-
Rule 104.10(a)
4
-
Rule 104.12
5
-
Rule 104.12(a)
1
-
Rule 104.12(b)
17
-
Rule 104.12(b)(i)
2
-
Rule 104.12(b)(ii)
13
-
Rule 104.12(b)(iii)
2
-
Rule 104.13
3
-
Rule 104.13(a)
1
-
Rule 104.13(c)
6
-
Rule 104.14
4
-
Rule 104.14(a)(i)
6
-
Rule 104.14(h)(i)
1
-
Rule 104.15
1
-
Rule 104.15(b)(i)
1
-
Rule 104.3
5
-
Rule 104.4
3
-
Rule 104.4(e)
1
-
Rule 104.6
3
-
Rule 104.6(b)
1
-
Rule 104.7
2
-
Rule 104.7(a)
1
-
Rule 104.8
2
-
Rule 105
1
-
Rule 105.1(b)
2
-
Rule 105.1(b)(iii)
1
-
Rule 105.1(c)
1
-
Rule 105.2
3
-
Rule 105.2(a)
1
-
Rule 105.2(a)(i)
3
-
Rule 105.2(a)(ii)
1
-
Rule 105.2(a)(iii)b
1
-
Rule 105.3
2
-
Rule 105.3(d)
1
-
Rule 105.3(d)(iii)
1
-
Rule 106.2
2
-
Rule 106.2(a)
1
-
Rule 106.2(c)
2
-
Rule 106.2(g)
1
-
Rule 106.6
2
-
Rule 107
1
-
Rule 107.1
1
-
Rule 107.21
1
-
Rule 107.21(h)
1
-
Rule 107.27
1
-
Rule 107.28
1
-
Rule 107.28(c)
1
-
Rule 107.4(b)
1
-
Rule 107.6
1
-
Rule 108.1
1
-
Rule 108.2
1
-
Rule 109.1
1
-
Rule 109.1(b)
2
-
Rule 109.1(c)
4
-
Rule 109.1(c)(i)
1
-
Rule 109.1(c)(ii)(a)
1
-
Rule 109.15
1
-
Rule 109.3
1
-
Rule 109.5(h)
1
-
Rule 109.7
7
-
Rule 109.7(a)
5
-
Rule 109.8
2
-
Rule 11.2
3
-
Rule 11.2(c)
3
-
Rule 110.1
8
-
Rule 110.2
4
-
Rule 110.2(a)
3
-
Rule 110.3
8
-
Rule 110.3(a)
2
-
Rule 110.3(a)(i)
2
-
Rule 110.3(a)(iv)
1
-
Rule 110.3(a)(viii)
1
-
Rule 110.3(b)
2
-
Rule 110.3(b)(i)
1
-
Rule 110.3(vii)
1
-
Rule 110.4
8
-
Rule 110.4(a)
1
-
Rule 110.4(c)
3
-
Rule 110.7
1
-
Rule 110.7(b)
1
-
Rule 111
1
-
Rule 111.1
3
-
Rule 111.2
11
-
Rule 111.2(a)
61
-
Rule 111.2(a)(f)
1
-
Rule 111.2(a)(i)
3
-
Rule 111.2(a)(i)(ii)
1
-
Rule 111.2(a)(ii)
1
-
Rule 111.2(c)
1
-
Rule 111.2(c)(iii)
1
-
Rule 111.2(e)
1
-
Rule 111.2(f)
24
-
Rule 111.2(p)
1
-
Rule 111.2(q)
1
-
Rule 111.4(b)
1
-
Rule 112.2
1
-
Rule 112.2(a)
1
-
Rule 112.2(b)
6
-
Rule 112.2(f)
1
-
Rule 112.3
2
-
Rule 112.7
1
-
Rule 200.2(b)
1
-
Rule 204.3
5
-
Rule 204.3(d)
1
-
Rule 205.3(a)(iii)
1
-
Rule 208.5(a)
1
-
Rule 209.2(a)
1
-
Rule 209.2(c)
1
-
Rule 209.5
1
-
Rule 3
1
-
Rule 3.13(a)(iii)
1
-
Rule 3.17(c)(ii)
1
-
Rule 301.1
3
-
Rule 301.3
1
-
Rule 301.3(d)
1
-
Rule 301.3(q)(ii)
1
-
Rule 301.4
2
-
Rule 304.1
2
-
Rule 304.3
1
-
Rule 304.4
2
-
Rule 304.4(a)
4
-
Rule 304.4(b)
1
-
Rule 304(a)
1
-
Rule 309.2
3
-
Rule 309.3
2
-
Rule 309.4
2
-
Rule 309.5(a)
3
-
Rule 309.5(b)
1
-
Rule 310.1
2
-
Rule 310.1(e)(ii)
1
-
Rule 310.1(e)(iv)
1
-
Rule 311.1
1
-
Rule 312.6
1
-
Rule 4.17
2
-
Rule 4.4(b)
1
-
Rule 5.3
1
Showing 1 - 3 of 3
Disciplinary matters / misconduct
Dismissal/separation
Due process
Termination (of appointment)
Summary dismissal
Due Process: UNAT concluded in Molari that “disciplinary cases are not criminal.” So therefore the right and rules pertaining to self-incrimination are purely associated with criminal procedure and therefore does not apply in this instance which is a disciplinary case. The Tribunal finds that she was provided systematically with the evidence, including the payslips in the course of the interview, in addition to an opportunity to review the record of interview. Ultra vires: In this case the person who took the decision as recorded in the letter of dismissal was the Under Secretary-General for...
Compensation
Disciplinary matters / misconduct
Disciplinary measure or sanction
Separation from service
Upon review, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not commit the misconduct of providing false information in his annual leave report. The Respondent correctly established the facts for the remaining charges of the misconduct. However, the Respondent did not fully take into account all the mitigating circumstances when determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction. The Tribunal found the disciplinary measure disproportionate to the misconduct and modified it. The contested decision is rescinded. The disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of...