�山����

The Tribunal concluded that the established facts did not legally amount to misconduct and that the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant was unlawful ab initio and therefore, a violation of her rights. Breadth of judicial review: When reviewing disciplinary matters, the role of the Tribunal is to look at all the facts, including the facts that came up during the investigation. Thus, the Tribunal is entitled to look at the manner in which the investigation was conducted; the facts gathered; the testimony of witnesses and the documentary evidence. ST/AI/371: The Tribunal noted that: (i) under ST/AI/371, it is the responsibility of the head of office or responsible officer to undertake a preliminary investigation where there is reason to believe that a staff member has engaged in unsatisfactory conduct and (ii) that the head of office or responsible officer appears to be vested with wide discretion at the initial stage of a disciplinary matter. The Tribunal concluded, however, that this discretion is to be exercised judiciously in the light of what the investigation has revealed. In the exercise of that discretion the head of office or responsible officer is compelled to carefully scrutinize the facts gathered during the investigation; see if there are any flaws or omissions in the facts gathered that need to be remedied; assess whether all available and relevant witnesses have been interviewed; and call for supplementary investigation or clarification if need be. Allegations of misconduct (Charge Letter): Noting that the charge of submitting fraudulent documents was never put to the Applicant specifically in the charge letter, the Tribunal concluded that it cannot and should not embark on an analysis of what appears to be clearly “a new charge that was not the subject of an investigation”.