UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT held that the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal did not err in concluding that the former staff member鈥檚 misconduct was established and that the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, was proportionate under the Agency鈥檚 regulatory framework. The UNAT emphasized that fraud and collusive practices are considered areas of high concern and that misconduct committed by a person in a position of trust, such as a member of the Provident Fund Loans Committee, warrants a severe sanction.
The UNAT further held that the UNRWA DT correctly found no violation of the former staff member鈥檚 due process rights. It noted that the former staff member was formally notified of the allegations, interviewed promptly after notification, and given multiple opportunities to respond to the investigation findings. Moreover, the UNAT found no basis for awarding compensation, reiterating that compensation for harm requires proof of illegality and a causal nexus, which were absent in this case.
Therefore, the UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2024/050.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) contested the Agency鈥檚 decision to impose the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, for engaging in fraudulent and collusive practices related to Provident Fund loan applications, after the former staff member provided a forged document to facilitate a loan application.
In Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2024/050, the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal dismissed the former staff member鈥檚 application on the merits, finding that he admitted the misconduct, that the disciplinary measure was proportionate, and that his due process rights were respected.
Former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The standard of review in disciplinary cases is to examine whether the facts on which the sanction is based have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence, and whether the staff member鈥檚 due process rights were respected.
The Administration is best suited to select an adequate sanction within the limits stated by the respective norms, sufficient to prevent repetitive wrongdoing, punish the wrongdoer, satisfy victims and restore the administrative balance. The principle of proportionality requires that an administrative action should not be more excessive than is necessary for obtaining the desired result. Once the facts and the misconduct have been established, the appropriateness of the level of sanction can only be considered unlawful in case of obvious absurdity or flagrant arbitrariness.
In reviewing due process in disciplinary proceedings, the Appeals Tribunal has consistently held that only substantial procedural irregularities can render a disciplinary sanction unlawful.
A staff member鈥檚 due process rights come into operation when they are formally notified of the allegations against them, and not at the time the alleged misconduct occurred.
Compensation cannot be awarded when no illegality has been established, it cannot be granted when there is no breach of the staff member鈥檚 rights or administrative wrongdoing in need of repair.