Cassation No. 212 of 2021 - Administrative
Issued on 26/05/2021
Court Panel: Presided over by Mr. Judge Muhammad Abd al-Rahman al-Jarrah, Chief Judge of the Circuit, with Messrs. Judges Dr. Ahmed Al-Sayegh and Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Qader as counsellors.
1- The court is obliged to incorporate elements within its rulings that provide assurance to the reader regarding a thorough examination of the case's facts and evidence, the rationale justifying the adopted opinion, and the source from which the ruling is derived.
2- The court is mandated to meticulously review each defense presented by the opposing party and is required to render a definitive decision on it, with such a determination being one of the permissible consequences.
3- The department retains the discretion to select an appropriate penalty for each individual case, provided it refrains from abusing its authority.
4- Prior to imposing a penalty on an employee, the department is obligated to conduct an investigation aimed at identifying the job violation, establishing its veracity, and allowing the employee an opportunity to present their statements.
5- Despite the contested ruling annulling the decision to dismiss the respondent, the legitimacy of the dismissal reason is acknowledged, as the respondent breached job conduct rules in dealings with superiors and members of the Disciplinary Council during its session. The decision is supported by the minutes of the investigations conducted by the Violations Committee of the appellant, which confirmed the respondent's failure to attend work meetings, the affirmation of his executive officer regarding the respondent's lack of work performance, the implementation of a sensitisation plan to integrate him into work teams, his non-compliance with it, and negative behaviour in his interactions with colleagues. Consequently, the contested ruling is to be reversed.
Judgment, its reasons, meritorious defence, invalidating deficiencies in the reasons for the ruling?
- Guarantees of disciplinary punishment. Disciplinary penalty shall be preceded by an administrative investigation, allowing for the employee's statements to be heard and his defence to be examined before any penalty is imposed.
- The employee's professional behavior. Its obligations and controls?
- Ethical standards for public service.
- The correlation between the actions attributed to an employee and the penalty imposed rests within the discretionary authority of the department. However, this discretion must be exercised judiciously, ensuring that it does not amount to an abuse of authority or an unjustified extreme measure.
- An instance of flawed reasoning occurred when the contested ruling affirmed an appealed ruling that annuls the decision to dismiss an employee, despite the legitimacy of the dismissal reason.
1- Whereas it is prescribed as per the ruling of this court that the court rulings shall encompass elements designed to instill confidence in the reader that the court has diligently scrutinised the facts and evidentiary record of the case with discernment. Subsequently, the court is required to elucidate the rationale underlying its adopted stance and specify the origins from which it derived its judgment. Moreover, it is imperative that the court exhaustively employs its conferred authority to ascertain the veracity of the matter, addressing and conclusively adjudicating any defence raised by the opposing party before the trial court. Any such defence necessitating adjudication, if valid, may potentially alter the prevailing judicial perspective on the case.
In the event that the trial court encounters such a defence, it is incumbent upon the court to thoroughly examine it and provide cogent reasons for its response. The failure to entertain and consider such a defence is deemed a deficiency in the factual reasoning underpinning the court's ruling. Such deficiency, as per the provisions of Article 130 of the Civil Procedure Law, renders the ruling null and void.
2- Whereas it is prescribed in accordance with the provisions delineated in Article 66 of the Human Resources Law and Article 94 of its Implementing Regulation, it is mandated that employees adhere to a standard of conduct consistent with the approved norms for public employment. Specifically, employees are obligated to observe and comply with the laws and regulations pertinent to their responsibilities. They are further required to execute their duties with precision, diligence, and good faith, eschewing any manifestation of bad faith or negligence. A paramount expectation is the adherence to the highest ethical standards in both behavior and conduct, demonstrating due regard for the rights and obligations of their colleagues and treating them with courtesy.
Article 83 of the aforementioned law establishes a range of penalties that the department may impose upon an employee, ranging from a written warning to dismissal from service. The enumerated penalties include, but are not limited to, warnings, salary deductions, and demotion. It is imperative to note that the sequence in which these penalties are listed does not mandate the department to apply a specific penalty for each violation. Rather, the law affords the department the discretion to select the appropriate penalty for each individual case, provided such discretion is exercised judiciously and does not constitute an abuse of authority or an extreme measure, as articulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 83.
3- Whereas it is stipulated in accordance with the foundational tenets articulated in the Human Resources Law, it is underscored that the imposition of a disciplinary penalty upon an employee necessitates a preceding investigation, representing a pivotal safeguard prior to the implementation of such penalty. This procedural measure, employed by the department, is designed to ascertain the nature of the job violation, establish its veracity, afford the employee an opportunity to articulate their statements in relation to the alleged violation, and probe into the presented defense before the imposition of the penalty.
In light of this imperative, and as corroborated by the investigation report, it is evident that the Appellant's Violations Committee convened a meeting on 21/11/2018 to deliberate upon a series of alleged violations attributed to the respondent, namely: 1) Detrimental impact on the appellant's commercial sector due to the respondent's failure to execute assigned tasks; 2) Non-compliance with issued instructions; 3) Intentional reduction of production; 4) Deliberate disregard for instructions; 5) Failure to engage with the performance development awareness plan. In pursuit of this inquiry, the committee solicited statements from the manager of the development department in the commercial sector and the direct manager of the respondent. Their affirmations attested to the respondent's nonattendance at work meetings, amounting to a total of (17) occasions, and their failure to appear before the executive officer in three instances.
The executive officer of the respondent explicitly affirmed before the court that the respondent was not actively fulfilling his work responsibilities, despite efforts to integrate him through a sensitisation plan. Personal attempts were made to engage him with work teams, but the respondent remained unresponsive. Furthermore, the executive officer attested to the respondent's negative behavior towards colleagues. Upon presenting these violations to the committee, it was reported that (the respondent's behavior, interactions with committee members, and responses to inquiries exceeded the bounds of work ethics and professional conduct. The respondent exhibited a refusal to cooperate, answered questions in a negative manner, and conducted himself outside the limits of public morals). Consequently, the committee recommended the termination of his service.
In response to the committee's decision, the respondent filed a grievance against this decision, which was subsequently confirmed by the Grievances Committee. The matter was then appealed before the Objections Committee of the Federal Authority for Human Resources, resulting in Decision No. (3) of 2019, which rejected the objection. The basis for the decision to terminate the respondent's service was founded on his breach of the established rules of job conduct in dealings with superiors and members of the Disciplinary Council during its session. Thus, the contested decision is deemed valid, as it reflects consistency between the attributed actions of the respondent and the imposed penalty.
Contrary to this, the contested ruling took an alternative stance, contending (that a penalty harsher than a warning shall have been imposed on the respondent, however it dismissed him failing to apply the principle of gradualism in imposing disciplinary penalties and dismissed him.) This reasoning is considered unjustified and contravenes the established rules, rendering the contested ruling defective and warranting reversal.
The Court
Whereas in the facts, as apparent in the contested ruling and the remaining cassation documents, the respondent initiated lawsuit No. 76 of 2019 before the Abu Dhabi Administrative Court. In this legal action, he sought the annulment of the decision terminating his service, as well as reinstatement to his position and the consequential remedies. The respondent, in his claim, asserted that he held the position of manager of [specific details] at [employer's name] until his service was terminated by Decision No. 214 of 2014 without a legitimate reason, prompting him to file the aforementioned lawsuit.
In a session held on 19/11/2019, the court of first instance rendered a decision to cancel the contested decision and reject all other claims. Subsequently, the department appealed this decision, leading to Appeal No. 200 of 2019. The Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeal, in its ruling on 19/1/2021, affirmed the decision of the court of first instance. Consequently, the current cassation was filed.
Having been presented to this court in the Council Chamber, it was deemed appropriate to consider it during a session, and the pronouncement of the ruling is scheduled for today's session.
The appellant raises objections against the contested ruling, contending that it violates the law, misinterprets and misapplies legal principles, exhibits flaws in inference, and deviates from established facts. The ruling, in the appellant's view, deemed the termination of the respondent's service illegal on the grounds that the department failed to adhere to the gradual imposition of penalties outlined in Article 83 of the Human Resources Law. It further asserted that the imposition of the termination penalty was arbitrary, overlooking the respondent's violation of job duties as evidenced by the attributed breaches and deviations from prescribed requirements. The appellant underscores that the respondent underwent investigation for these violations, and the competent committee, in its decisions, recommended the termination of the respondent's service. Consequently, the appellant argues that the decision is lawful, not excessive in its assessment, and that the ruling, by deeming it defective, warrants reversal.
This objection raised holds merits, since it is prescribed as per the ruling of this court that the court rulings shall encompass elements designed to instill confidence in the reader that the court has diligently scrutinised the facts and evidentiary record of the case with discernment. Subsequently, the court is required to elucidate the rationale underlying its adopted stance and specify the origins from which it derived its judgment. Moreover, it is imperative that the court exhaustively employs its conferred authority to ascertain the veracity of the matter, addressing and conclusively adjudicating any defence raised by the opposing party before the trial court. Any such defence necessitating adjudication, if valid, may potentially alter the prevailing judicial perspective on the case.
In the event that the trial court encounters such a defence, it is incumbent upon the court to thoroughly examine it and provide cogent reasons for its response. The failure to entertain and consider such a defence is deemed a deficiency in the factual reasoning underpinning the court's ruling. Such deficiency, as per the provisions of Article 130 of the Civil Procedure Law, renders the ruling null and void.
Whereas it is prescribed in accordance with the provisions delineated in Article 66 of the Human Resources Law and Article 94 of its Implementing Regulation, it is mandated that employees adhere to a standard of conduct consistent with the approved norms for public employment. Specifically, employees are obligated to observe and comply with the laws and regulations pertinent to their responsibilities. They are further required to execute their duties with precision, diligence, and good faith, eschewing any manifestation of bad faith or negligence. A paramount expectation is the adherence to the highest ethical standards in both behavior and conduct, demonstrating due regard for the rights and obligations of their colleagues and treating them with courtesy.
Article 83 of the aforementioned law establishes a range of penalties that the department may impose upon an employee, ranging from a written warning to dismissal from service. The enumerated penalties include, but are not limited to, warnings, salary deductions, and demotion. It is imperative to note that the sequence in which these penalties are listed does not mandate the department to apply a specific penalty for each violation. 3- Rather, the law affords the department the discretion to select the appropriate penalty for each individual case, provided such discretion is exercised judiciously and does not constitute an abuse of authority or an extreme measure, as articulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 83.
Whereas it is stipulated in accordance with the foundational tenets articulated in the Human Resources Law, it is underscored that the imposition of a disciplinary penalty upon an employee necessitates a preceding investigation, representing a pivotal safeguard prior to the implementation of such penalty. This procedural measure, employed by the department, is designed to ascertain the nature of the job violation, establish its veracity, afford the employee an opportunity to articulate their statements in relation to the alleged violation, and probe into the presented defense before the imposition of the penalty.
In light of this imperative, and as corroborated by the investigation report, it is evident that the Appellant's Violations Committee convened a meeting on 21/11/2018 to deliberate upon a series of alleged violations attributed to the respondent, namely: 1) Detrimental impact on the appellant's commercial sector due to the respondent's failure to execute assigned tasks; 2) Non-compliance with issued instructions; 3) Intentional reduction of production; 4) Deliberate disregard for instructions; 5) Failure to engage with the performance development awareness plan. In pursuit of this inquiry, the committee solicited statements from the manager of the development department in the commercial sector and the direct manager of the respondent. Their affirmations attested to the respondent's nonattendance at work meetings, amounting to a total of (17) occasions, and their failure to appear before the executive officer in three instances.
The executive officer of the respondent explicitly affirmed before the court that the respondent was not actively fulfilling his work responsibilities, despite efforts to integrate him through a sensitisation plan. Personal attempts were made to engage him with work teams, but the respondent remained unresponsive. Furthermore, the executive officer attested to the respondent's negative behavior towards colleagues. Upon presenting these violations to the committee, it was reported that (the respondent's behavior, interactions with committee members, and responses to inquiries exceeded the bounds of work ethics and professional conduct. The respondent exhibited a refusal to cooperate, answered questions in a negative manner, and conducted himself outside the limits of public morals). Consequently, the committee recommended the termination of his service.
In response to the committee's decision, the respondent filed a grievance against this decision, which was subsequently confirmed by the Grievances Committee. The matter was then appealed before the Objections Committee of the Federal Authority for Human Resources, resulting in Decision No. (3) of 2019, which rejected the objection. The basis for the decision to terminate the respondent's service was founded on his breach of the established rules of job conduct in dealings with superiors and members of the Disciplinary Council during its session. Thus, the contested decision is deemed valid, as it reflects consistency between the attributed actions of the respondent and the imposed penalty.
Contrary to this, the contested ruling took an alternative stance, contending (that a penalty harsher than a warning shall have been imposed on the respondent, however it dismissed him failing to apply the principle of gradualism in imposing disciplinary penalties and dismissed him.) This reasoning is considered unjustified and contravenes the established rules, rendering the contested ruling defective and warranting reversal.
In light of the validity of the merits for adjudication as stipulated by Article 184 of the Civil Procedure Law, the court shall proceed to deliberate on the merits of the case in accordance with the directives and determinations set forth in the enacting terms of this ruling.

* * *