Annulment of dismissal for disproportionality in ICE disciplinary sanctionAnulación de despido por desproporcionalidad en sanción disciplinaria del ICE

**X. Appealed Judgment.** In analyzing the proportionality of the sanction, the lower court (Tribunal) confirmed that a fault indeed existed, which cannot be left without a corrective sanction. It pointed out that from the beginning of the investigation and in the notice of charges (intimación) itself, it was indicated that the alleged faults could generate administrative liability, specifically ranging from the sanction of a written reprimand (amonestación) to dismissal (separación del cargo), in accordance with the provisions of Articles 68 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República (LOCGR), 39 and 41 of the Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública (LCCEIFP), and 113 of the Ley de Administración Financiera y Presupuestos Públicos (LAFPP) and Article 39 of the Ley General de Control Interno (LGCI). In this way, it continued, the cessation of functions is not a regulated power but a discretionary one, since a range of sanctioning possibilities existed. Thus, canons 39 of the LCCEIFP and 41 LOCGR establish several sanctioning possibilities and must be analyzed together with precepts 38 subsection d) LCCEIFP, and which must be related to rule 41 of the latter legal body. Based on these rules, the lower court stated that the conclusion is reached that although the plaintiff's conduct in processing the tender (licitación) was insufficiently cautious and fits the situation described in the first paragraph of Article 41 of the LCCEIFP, it does not agree with "equating his gross negligence (culpa grave) in his actions with a violation of the duty of probity, or considering that there was a weakening of internal control, or even worse, an effective injury to the Administration’s economic interests," because "it is not a matter of sanctioning a hypothetical or eventual event, but a concrete consequence that has been generated. Even, it is worth saying, that the duty of probity as the CGR handles it cannot be used as a concept into which all actions and behaviors of public servants fit, to the point of demonizing the term and coming to consider, for example, that every breach of duties implicitly entails a violation of the duty of probity, and consequently, that dismissal without employer liability (cese de funciones sin responsabilidad patronal) is the automatic sanction." It continued, it is important to bring up that the Contralor’s Office itself revoked the sanction regarding the debarment (inhabilitación) that had been imposed, considering it sufficient to order only the dismissal; "Making full use of that analysis carried out by the Comptroller General when resolving the challenge presented by Mr. Iván against the act of dismissal without employer liability, this Chamber estimates that precisely 'in light of the merits of the case file' and what has been taken as established, as well as what has not been proven in the case file, the sanction imposed is clearly disproportionate and a less severe one could have been decreed from those provided in the legal system according to the type of fault committed by the former official." It added that mandate 68 of the LGCGR establishes dismissal as the sole sanction to impose on a public official. It emphasized, "the actions of Mr. Flores Arias in Public Tender (Licitación Pública) No. 7281 'Acquisition of an Enterprise Wireless System' do not show that they were contrary to the duty of probity, that an effective injury to the ICE’s patrimonial interests as the tendering entity was produced, that there was a negative impact on the public service, or that the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública) in general was put at risk and institutional internal control was weakened as the deciding body of the CGR asserted in the notice of charges, and even less, that the only possible sanction established in the legal system was dismissal, a situation that, even from the statement of charges (traslado de cargos), had been warned as one of the possible sanctions, but not the only one" (underlining and bold added). It specified, "the award recommendation made by the then UEN Director official in July 2006 was signed jointly with the Administrative Contracting Coordinator and supported by the ICE Procurement Department (Proveeduría). On that occasion, they explained that the estimated amount according to the initial study was $8,400,000.00, but that when presenting the project to the sectoral study group formed for the drafting of the bidding documents (cartel), the need was determined to integrate elements into it that would give robustness and comprehensively complement the service to be provided to clients, such as measurement equipment, test mock-ups, spare parts inventory, corrective and preventive maintenance, so that said improvement to the object would produce an increase in the total project cost. In this regard, it was transparently indicated that the recommended bid quoted $11,220,432.97, and that the percentage difference between the estimated amount and the amount of the recommended bid was 124.40%, said percentage difference being due, as he explained, to the fact that the bidding documents contained a more comprehensive object and there was an increase in market prices when the first certification of Wimax equipment was carried out; lastly, if the amount requested in the market study is compared with the recommended bid, there is a difference of barely 33.57%, which is acceptable considering the aforementioned factors that affected the real cost of the equipment and services offered. As can be seen, there was never any concealment of the facts by the then UEN Director, neither from the other administrative units nor from the entity's hierarchical collegiate body, but rather he duly explained the situation for which said changes had to be made, which caused the value of the contractual object to increase, given the improvement being carried out in pursuit of satisfying the public interest" (underlining and bold added). It added that the ICE Board of Directors (Consejo Directivo) itself unanimously agreed to award the contract to Datatell Tres Mil de C.R. S.A. for the amount of $11,220,432.97, without any questioning; likewise, that it subsequently obtained the comptroller's approval (refrendo). In the lower court's opinion, by not ordering the performance of updated market studies, the plaintiff incurred a serious fault, namely, omission of the duties of the position (deberes del cargo), but it is not of such magnitude "that it implies dismissal without employer liability, since other consequences are also provided for such behaviors. The fact of not requesting an update of the corresponding market price studies at the opportune moment, although it implied an increase in the budget amount required for the project, was done with the aim of favoring institutional interests and did not injure the Public Treasury, nor does it constitute an infraction of the duty of probity as the CGR considered" (underlining and bold added). It insisted that it does not agree that he violated the duty of probity and internal control, or that he generated a patrimonial risk to the ICE’s coffers or compromised the Public Treasury; the fault could even be labeled as a lack of interdepartmental coordination among the units in charge of the tender. Thus, it concluded, the most severe sanction was disproportionate and, therefore, must be annulled, "since there is no alignment between what was alleged, what was proven, and the sanction imposed, in light of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality." It stated that, in application of the rules of logic and sound rational judgment (sana crítica racional), "it should not be sanctioned with dismissal, and even less so in the case of an official who was no longer part of the Public Administration having resigned months earlier, which made the sanction unenforceable." It finalized that the act contains a flaw of absolute nullity (vicio de nulidad absoluta) for being disproportionate, which warrants its annulment, for exceeding the purposes and objectives of the legal system, and therefore must be removed from the personal file and the sanctions registry, both at the ICE and at the Contraloría General de la República.

**XI. Opinion of this Cassation Court (Tribunal de Casación).** From the foregoing account, this Chamber verifies that in the ruling, the Judges did state the grounds for the declaration of nullity of the administrative act, precisely on the disproportionality of the content, of the dismissal without liability, taking into consideration that the plaintiff's conduct did not injure the Public Treasury, did not constitute —in their view— an infraction of the duty of probity or of internal control. It remains to be noted that this Chamber does not find that the procedural flaw (vicio procesal) alleged by the appellant is configured because the lower court referred to one of the premises of the Contralor’s Office in the resolution of 9:00 hours of June 5, 2012. Note that the construction of that argument by the jurisdictional body, in addition to showing its coincidence with the position of the administrative head in that the latter eliminated the debarment initially decreed, involved the other premises referred to, which precisely led it to conclude differently from said body, that is, to decree the invalidity of the sanction of dismissal (destitución) without employer liability. Therefore, the alleged procedural flaw is not verified." Based on these norms, the Court stated that the conclusion is reached that while the plaintiff's conduct in processing the public tender (licitación) was not very cautious and falls within the assumption of the first paragraph of Article 41 of the LCCEIFP, it does not share "the likening of gross negligence (culpa grave) in his conduct to a transgression of the duty of probity (deber de probidad), or considering that there was a weakening of internal control, or even worse, an effective harm to the economic interests of the Administration," because "it is not a matter of sanctioning a hypothetical or potential event, but a concrete consequence that has been generated. Indeed, it is worth saying that the duty of probity, as handled by the CGR, cannot be used as a concept into which all actions and behaviors of public servants fit, to the point of demonizing the term and coming to consider, for example, that every breach of duties necessarily entails the violation of the duty of probity, and that consequently, the termination of employment without employer liability (cese de funciones sin responsabilidad patronal) is the automatic sanction." continued, it is important to note that the Office of the Comptroller General itself revoked the sanction regarding the disqualification that had been imposed, considering that it was sufficient to order only the dismissal; “Making full use of the analysis conducted by the Comptroller General when resolving the appeal filed by Mr. Iván against the act of dismissal without employer liability, this Chamber considers that precisely ‘in light of the merits of the case file’ and what has been taken as established, as well as what has not been proven in the case file, the sanction imposed is clearly disproportionate and a less severe one among those provided for in the legal system according to the type of fault committed by the former official could well have been decreed.” It added that Article 68 of the LGCGR establishes dismissal as the sole sanction to be imposed on a public official.

He emphasized, “the actions of Mr. Flores Arias in Public Tender No. 7281 ‘Acquisition of a Corporate Wireless System’ do not demonstrate that they were contrary to the duty of probity, that an effective injury to the proprietary interests of ICE as the tendering entity occurred, that there was a negative impact on the public service, or that the Public Treasury in general was put at risk and institutional internal control was weakened as the deciding body of the CGR asserted, much less that the only possible sanction established in the legal system was dismissal, a situation that even from the transfer of charges had been noted as one of the possible sanctions, but not the only one” (underlining and boldface added). He specified, “the recommendation for award made by the then-official Director of the UEN in July 2006, was signed jointly with the Administrative Contracting Coordinator and supported by the ICE Supply Office.” On that occasion, they explained that the amount estimated according to the initial study was $8,400,000.00, but that when presenting the project to the sectoral study group formed for the preparation of the tender specifications (cartelaria), the need was determined to integrate into it elements that would give robustness and comprehensively complement the service that would be provided to clients, such as measurement equipment, a test model, inventory of spare parts, corrective and preventive maintenance, so that said improvement to the scope of work (objeto) would produce an increase in the total cost of the project. In that regard, it was transparently indicated that the recommended offer quoted $11,220,432.97, and that the percentage difference between the estimated amount and the amount of the recommended offer was 124.40%, said percentage difference being due, according to the explanation, to the fact that the tender specifications (cartel) contained a more comprehensive scope of work (objeto) and there was an increase in market prices when the first certification of Wimax equipment was carried out; lastly, if the amount requested in the market study is compared with the recommended offer, there is a difference of barely 33.57%, which is acceptable considering the factors already mentioned that affected the real cost of the equipment and services offered.

As can be seen, there was never any concealment of the facts on the part of the then Director of the UEN, nor toward the other administrative units nor the entity’s highest collegiate body; rather, he duly explained the situation as to why those changes had to be made, which caused the value of the contractual object to increase, given the improvement being carried out for the sake of the public interest” (underlining and boldface added). He added that the very Board of Directors of the ICE unanimously agreed to award the contract to Datatell Tres Mil de C.R. S.A. for the amount of $11,220,432.97, without any objection whatsoever; likewise, that it subsequently obtained the comptroller’s approval. In the Tribunal’s opinion, by not ordering updated market studies, the plaintiff committed a serious fault, namely, omission of the duties of the position, but it is not of such magnitude “as to imply dismissal without employer liability, since other consequences are also provided for such conduct. The fact of not requesting an update of the corresponding market price studies at the appropriate time, although it did entail an increase in the budgeted amount required for the project, was done with the intent of favoring the institutional interests and did not harm the Public Treasury, nor does it constitute a violation of the duty of probity as the CGR considered it” (underlining and boldface added).

He insisted that he does not agree that he violated the duty of probity and internal control, or that he generated a patrimonial risk to the coffers of ICE or compromised the Public Treasury; the fault could even be characterized as a lack of interdepartmental coordination among the units that had the tender (licitación) in charge. Thus, he concluded, the most grievous sanction resulted disproportionate and, therefore, must be annulled, "since there is no fit between what was imputed, what was proven, and the sanction imposed, in light of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality." He stated, in application of the rules of logic and sound rational criticism, "it should not be sanctioned with dismissal, and even less when dealing with an official who was no longer part of the Public Administration having resigned months before, which made the sanction unenforceable." He ended by stating that the conduct contains a defect of absolute nullity due to being disproportionate, warranting its annulment, for exceeding the purposes and aims of the legal order, and therefore it must be eliminated from the personnel file and the sanctions registry, both at ICE and at the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República).

**XI. Criterion of this Court of Cassation (Tribunal de Casación).** From the foregoing summary, this Court verifies that in the judgment, the Judges did provide reasons for declaring the nullity of the administrative conduct, precisely in the disproportionality of the content, of the dismissal without employer liability, taking into consideration that the plaintiff's conduct did not harm the Public Treasury, did not constitute—in their view—an infraction of the duty of probity or internal control. It remains to be pointed out that this Court does not find that the procedural defect denounced was configured because the Court referred to one of the premises of the Comptroller's Office (Despacho Contralor) in the resolution at 9:00 a.m. on June 5, 2012. Note that the jurisdictional body's construction of that argument, in addition to exhibiting its coincidence with the position of the administrative head when the latter eliminated the debarment (inhabilitación) initially decreed, involved the other premises mentioned, which led it, precisely, to conclude differently from said body, that is, to decree the invalidity of the sanction of dismissal (destitución) without employer liability.

**X. Appealed Judgment**. In analyzing the proportionality of the sanction, the Court verified that a fault did indeed exist, which cannot be left without a corrective sanction. It noted that, from the beginning of the investigation and in the formal charge (intimación) itself, it was indicated that the alleged faults could generate administrative liability, specifically ranging from the sanction of written reprimand (amonestación) to removal from office (separación del cargo), in accordance with the provisions of articles 68 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República (LOCGR), 39 and 41 of the Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública (LCCEIFP), and 113 of the Ley de Administración Financiera y Presupuestos Públicos (LAFPP) and article 39 of the Ley General de Control Interno (LGCI). It continued, in this way, that the termination of duties is not a regulated power, but rather a discretionary one, since a range of possibilities for sanctioning existed. Thus, canons 39 of the LCCEIFP and 41 of the LOCGR establish several sanctioning possibilities and must be analyzed together with precepts 38 subsection d) of the LCCEIFP, and which must be related to rule 41 of this latter legal body.

Based on these norms, the Court stated that it reached the conclusion that although the plaintiff's conduct in processing the bidding procedure was not very cautious and that it falls under the assumption of the first paragraph of article 41 of the LCCEIFP, it does not share “the likening of gross negligence (culpa grave) for his behavior to a transgression of the duty of probity (deber de probidad), or considering that there was a weakening of internal control, or even worse, an effective injury to the economic interests of the Administration,” because “it is not about sanctioning a hypothetical or eventual event, but rather a concrete consequence that has been generated. Moreover, it is worth saying that the duty of probity, as handled by the CGR, cannot be used as a concept into which all actions and behaviors of public servants fit, to the point of demonizing the term and coming to consider, for example, that every breach of duties implicitly entails the violation of the duty of probity, and that consequently, the cessation of duties without employer liability is the automatic sanction.” She continued, it is important to bring up that the Comptroller’s Office itself revoked the sanction regarding the disqualification that had been imposed, considering that it was sufficient to order only the dismissal; "Fully availing ourselves of that analysis carried out by the Comptroller General when resolving the challenge filed by Mr. Iván against the act of dismissal without employer liability, this Chamber considers, that precisely 'given the merits of the record' and what has been taken for granted, as well as what has not been proven in the record, the sanction imposed is clearly disproportionate and a less severe one among those provided for in the legal system according to the type of fault committed by the former official could well have been decreed." She added, Article 68 of the LGCGR establishes the only sanction to be imposed on a public official: dismissal.

He emphasized, “the actions of Mr. Flores Arias in Public Tender No. 7281 ‘Acquisition of a Wireless Business System’ do not evidence that they were contrary to the duty of probity, that an effective injury to the proprietary interests of the ICE as the tendering entity was produced, that there was a negative impact on the public service, or that the Public Treasury in general was put at risk and internal institutional control was weakened as the deciding body of the CGR had intimated, and even less, that the only possible sanction established in the legal system was dismissal, a situation that even from the notice of charges had been advised as one of the possible sanctions, but not the only one” (underlining and boldface added). He specified, “the recommendation of award that the then-official Director of the UEN made in the month of July 2006, was signed jointly with the Administrative Contracting Coordinator and endorsed by the ICE Procurement Office.” On that occasion, they explained that the amount estimated according to the initial study was $8,400,000.00, but that upon presenting the project to the sectoral study group formed for the preparation of the tender specifications (elaboración cartelaria), the need was determined to integrate into it elements that would provide robustness and comprehensively complement the service to be provided to clients, such as measurement equipment, a test model, an inventory of spare parts, and corrective and preventive maintenance, and therefore said improvement to the scope (objeto) would produce an increase in the total cost of the project. In that regard, they transparently indicated that the recommended offer quoted $11,220,432.97, and that the percentage difference between the estimated amount and the amount of the recommended offer was 124.40%, this percentage difference being due, as explained, to the fact that the tender specifications (cartel) contained a more comprehensive scope (objeto) and to an increase in market prices occurring when the first certification of Wimax equipment was carried out; lastly, if the amount requested in the market study is compared to the recommended offer, there is a difference of only 33.57%, which is acceptable considering the factors already mentioned that affected the real cost of the equipment and services offered.

As can be seen, there was never any concealment of the facts by the then Director of the UEN, nor from the other administrative units nor from the hierarchical collegiate body of the entity; rather, he duly explained the situation for which said changes had to be made, which caused the value of the contractual object to increase, given the improvement being carried out in the interest of the public interest” (underlining and boldface added). He added that the Board of Directors of ICE itself unanimously agreed to award the contract to Datatell Tres Mil de C.R. S.A. for the amount of $11,220,432.97, without any objection; likewise, that it ultimately obtained the Comptroller's approval. In the opinion of the Tribunal, by not ordering updated market studies, the plaintiff committed a serious fault, namely, omission of the duties of the position, but it is not of such magnitude “as to imply dismissal without employer liability, since other consequences are also provided for such conduct. The fact of not requesting an update of the corresponding studies of market prices at the appropriate time, although it implied an increase in the budget amount required for the project, was done with the aim of favoring institutional interests and did not harm the Public Treasury, nor does it constitute a violation of the duty of probity as the CGR considered” (underlining and boldface added).

He insisted that he does not agree that he violated the duty of probity and internal control, or that he generated a patrimonial risk to the coffers of ICE or compromised the Public Treasury; the infraction could even be characterized as a lack of interdepartmental coordination among the units that were in charge of the tender. Thus, he concluded, the most grievous sanction was disproportionate and, therefore, must be annulled, “since there is no adjustment between what was imputed, what was proven, and the sanction imposed, in light of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.” He stated, applying the rules of logic and sound rational criticism, “it should not have been sanctioned with dismissal, even less so when dealing with an official who was no longer part of the Public Administration, having resigned months earlier, which rendered the sanction unenforceable.” He concluded that the conduct contains a defect of absolute nullity due to being disproportionate, warranting its annulment, for exceeding the purposes and objectives of the legal system, and therefore it must be eliminated from the personnel file and from the register of sanctions, both at ICE and at the Contraloría General de la República.

**XI. Criterion of this Court of Cassation.** From the foregoing summary, this Chamber verifies that in the judgment, the Adjudicators did provide reasons for the declaration of nullity of the administrative conduct, precisely on the disproportionality of the content of the dismissal without employer liability, taking into consideration that the plaintiff’s conduct did not harm the Public Treasury and did not constitute —in their view— an infraction of the duty of probity or internal control. It remains to be noted that this Chamber does not find that the procedural defect denounced is configured because the Court referred to one of the premises of the Contraloría in the resolution of 9:00 a.m. on June 5, 2012. It should be seen that the jurisdictional body’s construction of that argument, in addition to showing its concurrence with the position of the administrative chief when the latter eliminated the disqualification initially decreed, involved the other premises referred to, which led it, precisely, to conclude differently from said body, that is, to decree the invalidity of the dismissal sanction without employer liability. Therefore, the reproached procedural defect is not verified.

"X. Sentencia recurrida. Al analizar la proporcionalidad de la sanción, el Tribunal constató que en efecto existió una falta, que no puede dejarse sin sanción correctiva. Señaló, desde el inicio de la investigación y en la propia intimación se indicó que las presunta faltas podrían generar responsabilidad administrativa, específicamente desde la sanción de amonestación hasta la separación del cargo, de conformidad con lo que disponen los artículos 68 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República (LOCGR), 39 y 41 de la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública (LCCEIFP), y 113 de la Ley de Administración Financiera y Presupuestos Públicos (LAFPP) y el artículo 39 de la Ley General de Control Interno (LGCI). De este modo, prosiguió, el cese de funciones no es una potestad reglada, sino discrecional, pues existía un abanico de posibilidades para sancionar. Así los cánones 39 de la LCCEIFP y 41 LOCGR establecen varias posibilidades de sanción y deben ser analizados en conjunto con los preceptos 38 inciso d) LCCEIFP, y que deben relacionarse con la norma 41 de este último cuerpo legal. A partir de estas normas, manifestó el Tribunal, se llega a la conclusión de que si bien el actuar del demandante en la tramitación de la licitación fue poco precavida y que encuadra en el supuesto del párrafo primero del artículo 41 de la LCCEIFP, no comparte “el asemejar una culpa grave por su proceder con una transgresión al deber de probidad, o considerar que existió un debilitamiento del control interno, o peor aún, una lesión efectiva a los intereses económicos de la Administración”, pues “no se trata de sancionar un suceso hipotético o eventual, sino una consecuencia concreta que se haya generado. Incluso, valga decir, que el deber de probidad como lo maneja la CGR, no puede ser utilizado como un concepto donde encuadren todas las actuaciones y comportamientos de los servidores públicos, al punto de satanizar el término y llegar a considerar por ejemplo, que todo incumplimiento de deberes lleve implícita la violación al deber de probidad, y que por consiguiente, el cese de funciones sin responsabilidad patronal sea la sanción automática”. Continuó, es importante traer a colación que el propio Despacho Contralor revocó la sanción en cuanto a la inhabilitación que había sido impuesta, consideró que era suficiente disponer solo el despido; “Valiéndonos cabalmente de ese análisis realizado por la Contralora General a la hora de resolver la impugnación presentada por don Iván contra el acto de despido sin responsabilidad patronal, esta Cámara estima, que justamente "frente al mérito de los autos" y a lo que se ha tenido por sentado, así como a lo no probado en autos, la sanción impuesta a todas luces resulta desproporcional y bien pudo haberse decretado una menos severa de las que está prevista en el ordenamiento jurídico según el tipo de falta cometida por el exfuncionario”. Abonó, el mandato 68 de la LGCGR establece como sanción única a imponer a un funcionario público, el despido. Enfatizó, “las actuaciones del señor Flores Arias en la Licitación Pública N° 7281 “Adquisición de un Sistema Inalámbrico Empresarial” no evidencian que hayan sido contrarias al deber de probidad, que se haya producido una efectiva lesión a los intereses patrimoniales del ICE como entidad licitante, que haya existido un impacto negativo en el servicio público, o bien, que se haya puesto en riesgo la Hacienda Pública en general y se debilitara el control interno institucional como lo intimó el órgano decisor de la CGR, y menos aún, que la única sanción posible establecida en el ordenamiento jurídico fuera el despido, situación que incluso desde el traslado de cargos había advertido como una de las posibles sanciones, mas no la única” (el subrayado y negrita se añaden). Precisó, “la recomendación de adjudicación que hiciera el entonces funcionario Director de la UEN en el mes de julio del 2006, fue suscrita en conjunto con la Coordinadora de Contratación Administrativa y respaldada por la Proveeduría del ICE. En tal ocasión explicaron, que el monto estimado de acuerdo al estudio inicial fue de $8.400.000,00, pero que al presentar el proyecto al grupo de estudio sectorial conformado para la elaboración cartelaria, se determinó la necesidad de integrar a este, elementos que dieran robustez y complementaran de forma integral el servicio que se brindaría a los clientes, tales como equipos de medición, maqueta de pruebas, inventario de repuestos, mantenimientos correctivo y preventivo, por lo que dicha mejora al objeto produciría un aumento en el costo total del proyecto. En tal sentido, de manera transparente se indicó, que la oferta recomendada cotizó $11.220.432.97, y que la diferencia porcentual entre el monto estimado y el monto de la oferta recomendada era de 124,40%, obedeciendo dicha diferencia porcentual según lo explicó, a que el cartel contenía un objeto más integral y se dio un aumento en los precios de mercado al realizarse la primera certificación de equipos Wimax; por último, si se compara el monto solicitado en el estudio de mercado y la oferta recomendada se tiene una diferencia de apenas un 33,57%, la cual resulta aceptable considerando los factores ya mencionados, que afectaron el costo real de los equipos y servicios ofertados. Como se aprecia, nunca existió ocultamiento alguno de los hechos por parte del entonces Director de la UEN, ni a las otras dependencias administrativas ni al órgano colegiado jerárquico de la entidad, sino que explicó en debida forma la situación por la cual se debieron realizar dichos cambios, los cuales hicieron que aumentara el valor del objeto contractual, dada la mejora que se estaba realizando en aras de la satisfacción del interés público” (el subrayado y negrita se adicionan). Adicionó, el propio Consejo Directivo del ICE acordó por unanimidad adjudicar a Datatell Tres Mil de C.R. S.A. por el monto de $11.220.432,97, sin ningún cuestionamiento; asimismo, que a la postre obtuvo el refrendo contralor. En criterio del Tribunal, al no ordenar la realización de estudios de mercado actualizados el actor incurrió en falta grave, a saber, omisión de los deberes del cargo, pero no es de tal magnitud “que implique el despido sin responsabilidad patronal, pues para tales conductas, están previstas también otras consecuencias. El hecho de no solicitar una actualización de los estudios correspondientes de los precios de mercado en su momento oportuno, si bien implicó un aumento en el monto presupuestario que se requería para el proyecto, se hizo con el ánimo de favorecer los intereses institucionales y no lesionó la Hacienda Pública, ni constituye tampoco una infracción al deber de probidad como lo consideró la CGR” (el subrayado y negrita se añaden). Insistió, no comparte que haya violentado el deber de probidad y el control interno, o que haya generado un riesgo patrimonial a las arcas del ICE o comprometido la Hacienda Pública; incluso la falta podría tildarse como falta de coordinación interdepartamental de las dependencias que tuvieron la licitación a cargo. Así, concluyó, la sanción más gravosa resultó desproporcionada y, por ende, debe anularse, “pues no existe un ajuste entre lo imputado, lo acreditado y la sanción impuesta, a la luz de los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad”. Refirió, en aplicación de las reglas de la lógica y la sana crítica racional “no debería sancionarse con el despido, y menos tratándose de un funcionario que ya no formaba parte de la Administración Pública al haber renunciado meses atrás, lo que tornaba inejecutable la sanción”. Finalizó, la conducta contiene un vicio de nulidad absoluta por desproporcionada, que amerita su anulación, por exceder los fines y cometidos del ordenamiento jurídico, por lo que deberá eliminarse del expediente personal y del registro de sanciones, tanto en el ICE con en la Contraloría General de la República.

XI.Criterio de este Tribunal de Casación. De la anterior reseña, constata esta Cámara que en el fallo, los Juzgadores sí motivaron la declaratoria de nulidad de la conducta administrativa, precisamente en la desproporcionalidad del contenido, del despido sin responsabilidad, tomando en consideración que la conducta del actor no lesionó la Hacienda Pública, no constituyó —en su parecer— infracción al deber de probidad o al control interno. Resta señalar que no encuentra esta Cámara se configure el vicio procesal denunciado por haber referido el Tribunal una de las premisas del Despacho Contralor en la resolución de las 9 horas del 5 de junio de 2012. Véase que la construcción de ese argumento del órgano jurisdiccional, en adición a exhibir su coincidencia con la posición del jerarca administrativo en cuanto este último eliminó la inhabilitación decretada inicialmente, implicó las otras premisas referidas, que le llevaron, precisamente, a concluir diferente a dicho órgano, esto es, a decretar la invalidez la sanción de destitución sin responsabilidad patronal. Luego, no se verifica el vicio procesal reprochado".