�山����

In disciplinary cases, the Dispute Tribunal must establish: i) whether the facts on which the sanction is based have been established, ii) whether the established facts qualify as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules, and iii) whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence.  The appeals procedure is not an opportunity for a party to reargue their case. The Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member occurred.  When termination is a possible outcome, misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, which means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable. Clear and convincing evidence of misconduct, including serious misconduct, imports two high evidential standards: clear requires that the evidence of misconduct must be unequivocal and manifest and convincing requires that this clear evidence must be persuasive to a high standard appropriate to the gravity of the allegation against the staff member and in light of the severity of the consequence of its acceptance. The Dispute Tribunal ordinarily should hear the evidence of the complainant and the other material witnesses, assess the credibility and reliability of the testimony under oath before it, determine the probable facts and then render a decision as to whether the onus to establish the misconduct by clear and convincing evidence has been discharged on the evidence adduced. The trial judge is best placed to assess the nature and probative value of the evidence placed before them by the parties to justify their factual findings. The Secretary-General has wide discretion in applying disciplinary sanctions for misconduct, but the disciplinary measure must be proportionate to the misconduct as proven by appropriate evidentiary methods. However, due deference must be shown to the Secretary-General’s decision on sanction because Article 101(3) of the United Nations Charter requires the Secretary-General to hold staff members to the highest standards of integrity and he is accountable to the Member States of the United Nations in this regard. The ultimate test, or essential enquiry, is whether the sanction is excessive in relation to the objective of staff discipline. An excessive sanction will be arbitrary and irrational, and thus disproportionate and illegal, if the sanction bears no rational connection or suitable relationship to the evidence of misconduct and the purpose of progressive or corrective discipline. The most important factors to be taken into account in assessing the proportionality of a sanction include the seriousness of the office, the length of service, the disciplinary record of the employee, the attitude of the employee and his past conduct, the context of the violation and employer consistency. The Administration has a broad discretion in disciplinary matters which will not be lightly interfered with on judicial review so long as the discretion is exercised lawfully and judiciously. It is not the role of the Dispute Tribunal to consider the correctness of the choice made by the Administration amongst the various courses of action open to it or to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. Only substantial procedural irregularities can render a disciplinary sanction unlawful. The onus to show improper motive is on the party asserting it.  The objective test for assessing bias (of a judge) is whether a reasonable person, fully informed of all relevant circumstances would apprehend that there was conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the judge because of which the judge could not decide the case fairly.