�山����

The Tribunal held that the Administration did not have sufficient evidence of Mr. Koutang’s level of engagement in outside activities to justify a finding that he had engaged in an outside occupation or employment. Thus, there were no reasonable grounds to sustain a finding of conflict of interest. While Mr. Koutang had installed a private router in his office there was no breach of security and no willful misconduct. Mr. Koutang had no ulterior motive or malicious intent in installing the router. It was at most an error of judgment with no proven adverse effects on the Country Office. The Tribunal also held that in this case, even if the Applicant had been properly found guilty of misconduct, the sanction of termination was disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and the sanctions imposed, particularly in comparison to the sanctions imposed on other staff members whose conduct was considerably more serious (ST/IC/2006/48). Engaging in outside activity: The Tribunal found that despite the Applicant’s 22% shareholding and seat on the board of directors, he did not have outside employment. It was at the most an appearance of outside employment, which justified further investigation, but in the absence of deeper involvement, did not justify the charge of serious misconduct. Conflict of interest: A conflict of interest only exists where it is possible for the staff member or his business to benefit by reason of his position in the UN. There is no evidence of this, indeed, UNDP instead benefited from Mr. Koutang’s association. Proportionality: In disciplinary matters, the administration is bound to act in a proportionate manner. Information circulars assist in determining the scale of misconduct, and the actions of the Administration are subject to review by the Tribunal.