UNDT/2023/072

UNDT/2023/072, Kennedy

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Having reviewed all the factors used in determining the appropriate sanction for the Applicant’s misconduct, the Tribunal finds that the USG/DMSPC has provided sufficient reasoning in the contested decision and has established a rational connection or relationship between the evidence and the objective of the disciplinary action.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contests the decision of the Under-Secretary-General for the Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (“USG/DMSPC”) to impose upon him the disciplinary measures of written censure with loss of four steps in grade.

Legal Principle(s)

As the Appeals Tribunal has stated, the Administration has discretion to impose the disciplinary measure that it considers adequate to the circumstances of a case and to the actions and behaviour of the staff member involved, and the Tribunal should not interfere with administrative discretion unless the sanction imposed appears to be “blatantly illegal, arbitrary, adopted beyond the limits stated by the respective norms, excessive, abusive, discriminatory or absurd in its severity”.

Outcome
Dismissed on merits
Outcome Extra Text

The Tribunal also notes that the contested decision imposes only a “written censure with loss of four steps in grade”, which correspond to the two most lenient options in the list of disciplinary measures available under staff rule 10.2(a). Given the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal finds that these disciplinary measures are proportionate to the established misconduct and are not excessive. 

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.

Applicants/ Appellants
Kennedy
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Document Topic/Theme :