UNDT/2018/056, Sall

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The failure to re-interview the subject of an investigation to confront him/her with additional gathered evidence constitutes a breach of his/her due process rights: the contested disciplinary decision is unlawful since it was taken based on the evidence and recommendations of the SIU/UNAMID investigation reports issued in January 2013 and December 2013, even though the SIU/UNAMID continued the investigation and gathered additional evidence from two witnesses in January 2015 and April 2015. The new evidence was never brought to the attention of the Applicant or of the decision-maker before the contested decision was issued and the exonerating evidence was never evaluated and taken into consideration during the investigation and the disciplinary process. The Dispute Tribunal concluded that (a) the application is granted in part, the contested decision to terminate the Applicant’s contract for disciplinary reasons and to separate him from the UNAMID is rescinded, and any references relative to the Applicant’s disciplinary sanction of separation from service are to be removed from his official status file; (b) As an alternative to the rescission of the contested decision, the Respondent is to pay to the Applicant USD5,000; (c) The Respondent is to pay the Applicant the equivalent of his net salary for the period 8 May-30 June 2016 as material damages. Further, the Applicant’s request for reinstatement is rejected since he was separated from service for disciplinary reasons on 8 May 2016 and his fixed-term contract was due to expire on 30 June 2016.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant, a former staff member of the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur (“UNAMID”), filed an application before the Dispute Tribunal contesting the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity. As remedy, the Applicant requested his reinstatement with back pay and benefits.

Legal Principle(s)

Legal value of a closure report issued by the ID/OIOS Director: the Tribunal considers that once a closure report is issued by the ID/OIOS Director, any prior investigation report(s) can no longer constitute the basis for a disciplinary decision to be taken by the USG/DM. In case that, after the issuance of a closure report, new incriminating evidence is presented, based on which the USG/OIOS decides to re-open the investigation, the closure report is no longer in effect and the investigation is considered to be pending and a new report is to be prepared by ID/OIOS. If, after the re-opening of the investigation, ID/OIOS issues an investigation report, only this new document represents the basis for the issuance of a disciplinary sanction.

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

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.