UNDT/2010/096, Woldeselassie
The main evidence against the Applicant was the testimony of the driver who claimed that he had been asked by the Applicant to bring a carton to Dire Dawa. The Respondent claimed that a printer was missing from the inventory list. The driver’s testimony was credible, especially since he was able to provide precise details on the printer’s bar code and the serial number. In view of the overwhelming evidence that the Applicant had shown a pattern of misconduct, including the storage of obscene material on his official computer, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent established a prima facie case of misconduct on the part of the Applicant. With respect to the proportionality of the disciplinary measure imposed, UNDT jurisprudence supported the summary dismissal for the offence of theft. In the United Nations, as in any other international organization, theft constitutes an egregious lapse in the integrity expected of an international civil servant.
The Applicant contested the decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.
In reviewing this kind of quasi-judicial decision and in keeping with the relevant general principles of law, in disciplinary cases the Tribunal generally examines (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measures were based have been established; (ii) whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct or serious misconduct; (iii) whether there has been any substantive irregularity (e.g. omission of facts or consideration of irrelevant facts); (iv) whether there has been any procedural irregularity; (v) whether there was an improper motive or abuse of purpose; (vi) whether the sanction is legal; (vii) whether the sanction imposed was disproportionate to the offence; (viii) and, as in the case of discretionary powers in general, whether there has been arbitrariness.