Ãå±±½ûµØ

When termination was the possible outcome of the investigation, each allegation of misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence; in other words, the truth of the facts asserted must have been highly probable. The only rule cited as applicable in this case referred to a blood alcohol level as a measure of intoxication. The Applicant was not subjected to a blood test. TheTribunal found that there was no clear or convincing evidence before the Respondent that the Applicant drove while intoxicated. There is no rule prohibiting United Nations staff from having a drink of alcohol. It cannot be an unusual or unexpected event for such persons to socialize during private time with friends while on holidays and this may include a social drink. What was prohibited in the MINUSMA Code of Conduct is driving while intoxicated. The burden of proving possession of the firearm at the accident scene in a clear and convincing manner to justify separation from employment was on the Respondent. The Respondent’s conclusions were, however, expressly based not on clear on convincing evidence but on probability. The Respondent’s contention that as the issue of mistranslation was not previously raised, the Tribunal ought not to take it into account in reviewing the disciplinary decision, was without merit. There was no basis on which the Respondent could have found clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had the firearm with him after he drank beer that night. This conclusion seems to have been based on a hunch by the Respondent. No witness came forward to say the Applicant was seen with the firearm at the scene of the accident. Instead the sole independent witness, gave sworn evidence that he did not see the Applicant with a firearm on the night of the accident. The Respondent, ex post facto, raised a point however, that if the Applicant left the firearm in his hotel room that too would have been enough breach of the rules to merit the sanction. The Applicant was not charged with that allegation and had no opportunity to respond to such an allegation. It would not be in keeping with procedural fairness for the Tribunal to now hold, that although there was insufficient evidence of the alleged possession of the firearm while consuming alcohol, instead his sanction was justified because he left the firearm in his hotel room.