UNDT/2023/038 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

UNDT/2023/038, Abdulrasool

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal, based on the evidence on the record established that the invoice and the medical report that the Applicant submitted to Cigna were not authentic. The Tribunal held that this was enough to substantiate the accusation that the Applicant used false documents to receive improper and undue economic benefits from Cigna. The Tribunal further concluded that no evidence was offered of the effectiveness of the medical treatment. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in misconduct through his submission of a fraudulent medical claim for medical services that had not occurred.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant committed fraud, prohibited conduct under the UNDP Policy against Fraud and other Corrupt practices approved in October 2018.

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s due process rights were respected during the investigation and disciplinary process.

On whether the sanction was proportionate to the offence, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not challenged the proportionality of the measure. It recalled that the Tribunals have consistently ruled that misconduct involving intentional and deceptive conduct, particularly for personal gain, merit the most severe sanctions such as separation from service or dismissal.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested UNDP’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnities, pursuant to staff rules 10.1(a) and 10.2(a)(viii).

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, the role of the UNDT in disciplinary cases is to perform a judicial review of the case and assess the following elements:

i. Whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence;

ii. Whether facts amount to misconduct;

iii. Whether the staff member’s due process rights were guaranteed during the entire proceeding; and

iv. Whether the sanction is proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

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

Abdulrasool

Entity

UNDP

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2022/054

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Nairobi