UNDT/2013/117

UNDT/2013/117, Kondombo

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicant’s rights were respected in compliance with ST/AI/371. The Applicant failed to establish any irregularities in the procedure followed to impose the disciplinary measure on him. It was clear from the investigation that there were several irregularities in the supporting documents submitted by the Applicant. These irregularities were sufficiently disturbing to strongly suggest that the said invoices were falsified. The facts on the basis of which the Applicant was sanctioned were established. The Applicant’s actions constituted professional misconduct within the meaning of the regulations in effect at the time of the alleged facts; there was sufficient evidence to establish that the Applicant’s conduct was contrary to the provisions of staff rule 10.1 and staff regulation 1.2(b) and he, therefore, was guilty of misconduct. The Applicant’s submission of false invoices to GMC constituted processional misconduct justifying dismissal for serious misconduct under the Medical Insurance Plan regulations. The sanction was in no way disproportionate, given the seriousness of the alleged misconduct. The decision taken on 24 June 2011 by UNDP and received by the Applicant on 28 July 2011 was well founded. UNDT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant challenged the decision to impose the disciplinary measure of separation from service for the allegedly false authentication of a claim for reimbursement of medical expenses to the insurer Garantie Medicale et Chirurgicale (GMC) and the submission of an allegedly fraudulent invoice relating to another medical expenses claim to GMC.

Legal Principle(s)

The Secretary-General may impose disciplinary measures on staff members who engage in misconduct. When the Tribunal considers an application challenging the legality of a disciplinary measure, it must determine: 1) whether the proper procedure was followed; 2) whether the allegations were substantiated; 3) whether the alleged actions constituted misconduct; and 4) whether the sanction imposed was proportionate to the misconduct.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Kondombo

Entity

UNDP

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2011/54

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Nairobi