Ãå±±½ûµØ

The UNDT judgment was appealed by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed the scope of judicial review by reviewing the facts and concluding that there was sufficient evidence of inebriation but concluding there was a lower level of alcohol consumed based on the breathalyzer result. UNAT held that UNDT correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the imposition of the sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and termination indemnity was disproportionate to the misconduct. UNAT held that the fact that the consumption of alcohol was less, and the level of inebriation was lower, than suggested by the disciplinary decision, was a relevant consideration to which UNDT attached appropriate weight. UNAT held that the UNDT did not misdirect itself in accepting, as mitigating factors, the absence of prior misconduct, Mr. Turkey’s length of service, the fact that the misconduct itself took place for a very short time, and the circumstance that Mr Turkey had not intended to drive the vehicle outside of the Camp. UNAT held that the constitutive elements of an offence must be considered separately from mitigating and aggravating factors. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law in considering that the ‘zero alcohol standard did not preclude a less severe sanction than separation from service. UNAT held that the Secretary-General failed to establish that UNDT made an error of law or fact in its review of the disciplinary measure imposed on Mr Turkey. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.