text: joinder appropriate and will address both cases in this Judgement .- 17 - The Tribunal deals first with case No. 511. II.The Applicant in this case challenges the Secretary-General's decision dated 10 August 1988, maintaining his original decision o f 28 May 1982, summarily dismissing the Applicant for seriou s misconduct. The basis for the decision was the Secretary-General' s conclusion that the Applicant had misappropriated US$207,582 of th e funds of the Organization during 1980 and 1981. This was sa id to have been accomplished by the Applicant obtaining from the Organizatio n over 400 cheques payable to non-existent persons, whose names th e Applicant falsely endorsed on the cheques. The Applicant the n allegedly presented the cheques for and received payment; in som e cases placing his own name on cheques as a second endorser. Th e Secretary-General's original d etermination of serious misconduct also said that the Applicant had falsely denied during investigat ion of the matter having forged any endorsement signatures on the cheques. I n maintaining his original decision of 28 May 1982, the Secretary - General acted consistently with and evidently concurred in th e conclusions reached by the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) which, a s reflected by its report, caref ully analyzed the documentary evidence, the testimony of witnesses and the arguments presented to it. III.As is clear from the Tribunal's jurisprudence and in particu lar from its recent decisions in Judgement No. 429, Beyele (1988); Judgement No. 425, Bruzual (1988); Judgement No. 424, Ying (1988); and Judgement No. 445, Morales (1989), the Secretary-General has broa d discretion to determine what constitutes serious misconduct and t o summarily dismiss staff members who engage in it. Contrary to th e Applicant's assertions, the Respondent is not required to establis h
analysis: The text appears to be related to the administrative procedures and decisions made within an international organization, specifically regarding the dismissal of a staff member due to alleged serious misconduct. The language used is formal and legal, indicating a focus on governance and decision-making processes.