UNDT/2023/050

UNDT/2023/050, Asgedom

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

In this case, the facts were established and there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed fraud on purpose.

The Applicant’s conduct amounted to a breach of his basic obligations under staff regulations 1.2(b) and (g), staff rule 1.2(i), and the Strategic Framework for the Prevention of Fraud and Corruption.

The evidence is clear and convincing that the Applicant acted with knowledge and intent to mislead (and even with a possible personal economic interest).

Given the nature and gravity of the Applicant’s misconduct, the sanction is not absurd, unreasonable, or disproportionate.

The Applicant’s registration fraud for a single person alone renders the continuation of the employment relationship intolerable and warrants dismissal.

The Applicant failed to establish any violations of due process that could impact the disciplinary measure.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The disciplinary measure of dismissal imposed on the Applicant.

Legal Principle(s)

In reviewing a disciplinary measure, the Dispute Tribunal should determine (a) whether the alleged facts have been established; (b) whether the established facts constitute misconduct; (c) whether the disciplinary measure is proportionate to the fence; and (d) whether due process was respected.

Any form of dishonest conduct compromises the necessary relationship of trust between employer and employee and will generally warrant dismissal.

The key elements of an Applicant’s rights of due process are that he must be fully informed of the charges against him and be given the opportunity to contest them.

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

Asgedom

Entity

UNHCR

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2022/046

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Nairobi