Ãå±±½ûµØ

Placement on SLWFP: The Tribunal held that there was ample evidence that the underlying rationale behind the placement of the Applicant on SLWFP related to misconduct and as such, his suspension cannot be justified under former staff rule 105.2(a)(i) since the Respondent did not have the requisite authority to place him on SLWFP in the context of an investigation. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent’s placement of the Applicant on SLWFP was in actuality a suspension from service pursuant to former staff rule 110.2 and section 6 of ST/AI/371. Due Process: The Tribunal held that the scope of the discretionary authority conferred on the Secretary-General to suspend staff members is clearly delineated by the criteria set out in sections 6(a) to (c) of ST/AI/371 and as such, the Respondent should not have applied the provision on suspension in isolation but that he should have applied it in conjunction with the due process rights set out in staff rule 110.4 and section 6 of ST/AI/371. Thus, the Applicant’s due process rights were violated. Damage to reputation: The Tribunal held that the intense media coverage adversely impacted the Applicant’s reputation because the public nature of the Organization’s statements and the external media reports resulted in the Applicant being associated with fraud, abuse, mismanagement and other serious wrongdoing and as a result of this association, his career suffered palpably.