ORANJESTAD, ARUBA :--- The Court in Civil Service Matters has overturned the immediate dismissal of an Aruban civil servant who altered an official pay slip before submitting it to a financial institution while applying for a loan.
The court ruled that the employee committed serious misconduct but found that the ultimate disciplinary punishment—unconditional dismissal with immediate effect—was disproportionate under the circumstances.
The civil servant had worked as an administrative employee in the Financial Affairs Department of the Directorate of Public Health since August 2017.
In October 2025, she applied to Island Finance for a loan from Afl. 2,500 to pay for repairs to her vehicle. She submitted pay slips for September and October 2025.
When Island Finance attempted to verify the documents with the Department of Human Resources, it discovered that the September pay slip had been altered. The employee had changed her net salary from Afl. 2,628.88 to Afl. 3,515.79 and removed the entry showing an Afl. 888.91 wage garnishment.
The Director of Human Resources subsequently filed a criminal complaint on June 5, 2026, citing possible document forgery and attempted fraud. On July 7, the Governor of Aruba imposed the disciplinary penalty of dismissal with immediate effect.
Employee admitted altering document
The civil servant admitted changing the pay slip but argued that the document did not accurately reflect her regular disposable income.
According to her explanation, the loan connected to the wage garnishment had already been repaid. However, the creditor failed to lift the garnishment in time, resulting in another deduction from her September salary. The creditor later reimbursed the amounts collected through the garnishment in August and September.
She maintained that she altered the document to show what her net salary would have been without that deduction—not to mislead Island Finance about her actual income.
The court nevertheless rejected her justification for modifying an official financial document. It found that the September pay slip was technically correct because the wage garnishment remained legally in effect at the time.
Instead of changing the document, the employee should have submitted the original pay slip and explained the circumstances surrounding the deduction and subsequent reimbursement.
Serious misconduct, but dismissal went too far
The court agreed with the Government that altering and using an official pay slip constitutes serious misconduct that affects the integrity, reliability, and credibility of the public service.
It emphasized that an administrative employee working in financial affairs should have known that she was not permitted to change an official financial document and present the altered version to a third party.
However, the court concluded that the Government imposed an overly severe punishment.
It found that the employee reacted improperly to a genuine error by the creditor, which failed to end the garnishment after the underlying debt was repaid. The court also accepted that she did not intend to misrepresent her normal salary.
Had the creditor lifted the garnishment on time, the court noted, the official pay slip would have reflected essentially the same net income shown on the altered document.
The employee had previously received a written reprimand for inappropriate social media statements. However, the court ruled that the earlier incident was unrelated, did not involve serious misconduct, and could not be treated as an aggravating factor supporting immediate dismissal.
The court also found no concrete evidence that the employee was likely to repeat the conduct.
It suggested that a conditional dismissal accompanied by a two-year probationary period could provide a sufficiently serious deterrent while giving the Government the opportunity to impose special conditions concerning the employee’s conduct.
Government must reconsider penalty
The court declared the July 7 dismissal decision null and void. The Governor of Aruba may now issue a new decision imposing a different disciplinary penalty.
While the employee won her objection against the immediate dismissal, the court cautioned that she appeared to have difficulty understanding and meeting the standards of conduct expected of a civil servant. It described the matter as an issue requiring attention from both the employee and her supervisors.
The Government was ordered to pay Afl. 1,400 in legal costs.
The ruling was issued on August 31, 2026, and published on September 14 under case number ECLI:NL:OGAACMB:2026:65. The parties may appeal the judgment to the Council of Appeal in Civil Service Matters.
