Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Administration, having reviewed the OIOS report, had reason to believe that the Applicant may have engaged in unsatisfactory conduct for which disciplinary measures may be imposed. The discretion was exercised judiciously by the responsible officers after review of the OIOS Investigation Report. The findings of the ASG/OHRM were those of an objective observer who had scrutinized the entire dossier and made conclusions on the basis of the evidence before him. There was no procedural irregularity on the part of the Organization as there was full compliance with ST/AI/371. Where an Applicant alleges that the conduct of investigations and disciplinary proceedings have wrought damage to his or her reputation, the burden lies on him or her as it does on the plaintiff in defamation cases, to convince the Court or Tribunal that such is the situation. Ãå±±½ûµØRules require that investigations and disciplinary proceedings be carried out with a high degree of confidentiality. Where the staff member’s reputation is injured because the responsible officials have breached the required confidentiality, compensation might be considered.The Tribunal finds that the Applicant did not go beyond making the assertion that the disciplinary proceedings affected or damaged his/her reputation. No effort was made to discharge the burden of proof regarding the claim for emotional distress and its impact on the Applicants health.