The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling issued by the Court of First Instance, which stipulated the disciplinary decision issued against a media person, as his employer reduced his job rank and transferred him to the warehouse department, after it was proven that he worked for another business entity, to provide "Rap" television programs.
In the details, a journalist filed an administrative suit, summoning his work authority, calling for the nullity of the procedures for referring him to the Disciplinary Council and for canceling its decision to reduce his job rank, re-housing him on his rank and returning him to fill the position of a media observer and eliminating his right to disburse the sums deducted from him.
He said that he was “occupying the position of a media observer, but he was surprised to transfer him to the warehouse department and refer him to a disciplinary council on the pretext of combining his work with the work of another program providing television without permission, and he had to issue a decision to reduce his rank”, calling for the cancellation of “the decision to stop him from work and the decision to end his service” .
The Federal Court of First Instance ruled to cancel the decision to reduce the job grade, and its implications, and was supported by the Federal Appeal Court, and the employer was not satisfied with this ruling, and appealed against it.
The employer said that «the ruling violated the law and erred in its application, and its interpretation is that it decided to cancel the contested penal decision to reduce the plaintiff’s degree, based on the fact that this decision involves excessive judgment in the penalty for its failure to match the violation attributed to him, without the judgment examining the severity of the violation That the plaintiff committed, and without realizing that the employer's assessment of the penalty was according to the discretionary management authority that was not misused.
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, explaining that this penalty is one of the penalties stipulated in the labor regulation, confirming that «estimating the penalty does not fall within the scope of the discretionary authority of the employer, and this estimate did not involve excess or excessive blurring or a striking difference between the degree of guilt and the penalty referred to, Hence, this decision was issued in conformity with the correct rule of law, which makes it clear that a request to cancel it is not based on a basis that must be rejected.
The court pointed out that the investigations conducted with the employee allowed him the right to defend what is attributed to him in violation of the laws and procedures followed by operating “Rap” programs outside his work place, and he admitted his mistake in that investigation, and then there is no vetting on the disciplinary authority if it gives the true description For the violation attributed to him, which is to combine his work with the center with another work outside it without adding new facts that were not under investigation.
And it concluded that the appeal ruling ruled in support of the initial ruling to cancel the contested decision, by reducing the employee’s rank in violation of the principles mentioned above, which must be reversed.
The journalist was surprised by his transfer to the warehouse department, and his referral to a disciplinary council to combine two works simultaneously.