2013-UNAT-374

2013-UNAT-374, Koutang

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it could not sustain the conclusion of UNDT that Mr Koutang’s actions did not amount to misconduct. UNAT held that the sanction imposed was not unreasonable, absurd, or disproportionate and, as such, UNAT held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Administration’s broad discretion in disciplinary matters. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the sanction disproportionate and in substituting its opinion for that of the Administration. UNAT allowed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested his summary dismissal (which was later commuted into separation with payment in lieu of notice and termination indemnity) for misconduct involving, in sum, his outside engagement with a private business, including installing a private router that would allow external parties to utilise UNDP corporate resources and possibly its network. UNDT found in favour of the Applicant, concluding that the charges of misconduct were not sustained and that, in any event, the sanction was not proportionate to the offence.

Legal Principle(s)

When reviewing a disciplinary sanction, the role of the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts on which the sanction is based have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. UNAT will not substitute the criteria of the administration for its own judgment.

Outcome

Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Koutang

Entity

UNDP

Case Number(s)

2013-426

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York