Cassation
No. 212 of 2021 - Administrative
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.
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.
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.