A civil servant who was sacked for lying about being tied to a chair at work faced previous disciplinary action for “exaggerating allegations” against colleagues, a tribunal has heard.

DeeAnn Fitzpatrick, who claimed she was tied up and gagged for whistleblowing on misogyny and abuse within Marine Scotland, received a written warning in relation to a separate incident in 2012 which was later overturned on appeal.

She is currently pursuing an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal after being sacked last year over claims she lied about the nature and timing of a photograph showing her gagged and taped to a chair in the government body’s Scrabster office.

The image, which went viral at the peak of the #metoo movement, prompted a national outcry and an investigation by the Scottish Government. However, the probe found the men involved had “no case to answer” and Ms Fitzpatrick was instead dismissed for gross misconduct.

She is now seeking to be reinstated by Marine Scotland and claims she was sacked because she complained.

The tribunal yesterday heard evidence from the government’s director of justice Neil Rennick who heard Ms Fitzpatrick’s disciplinary appeal on the chair incident.

Solicitor Andrew Gibson, representing Marine Scotland, asked Mr Rennick what impression he was left in relation to the claimant’s honesty over the event.

Mr Rennick said: “When I specifically pursued questions around the circumstances of the chair incident and of her handling of that, the evidence was much less credible.”

The tribunal heard that there were several opportunities for Ms Fitzpatrick to raise the incident when emailing or meeting managers and HR staff and she did not do so.

However, she did raise it on an occasion in 2012 during an appeal into “minor misconduct” on her part.

Mr Gibson put it to Mr Rennick that the hearing “was in relation to the claimant’s conduct in making false allegations, not pertaining to the chair incident, but some exaggerated allegations against people”.

The director confirmed that the outcome of the appeal was that a written warning that had been issued was overturned.

He was asked if Ms Fitzpatrick raising the chair incident at that time gave credibility to her story.

The witness replied: “My impression was that there were opportunities where Ms Fitzpatrick was raising wider issues around alleged harassment and bullying, but chose, for whatever reason, not to particularly focus on the photograph and that event until it came into the public domain.”

Mr Gibson also put it to Mr Rennick that it may be suggested that he decided to reject her appeal because Ms Fitzpatrick had made claims of abuse.

Mr Rennick said: “Absolutely not, that was not my thinking.”

Ms Fitzpatrick was dismissed for lying about the chair incident by claiming it took place in 2010 after she reported abuse and not in 2009 as a digital forensic expert found.

The incident was also said to be part of office “high jinks” that she willingly took part in, rather than abuse.

She was also dismissed over claims she falsified emails about the event and revealed details about it to the media.

Mr Rennick told the tribunal that Ms Fitzpatrick was advised by HR not to speak to the media, but did so as she believed her concerns were not being taken seriously – despite being invited to speak to HR when the photograph came to light.

Mr Rennick said: “I didn’t find that a compelling reason for directly engaging with the media.”

Ms Fitzpatrick, representing herself, asked if it was investigated because it had come to light, or because it had been reported in the media.

He said: “I don’t know. I can’t separate them. I would hope that if someone in whatever circumstances raised serious allegations, they would be investigated.”

Judge Alexander Kemp also asked if the photograph “demonstrated compliance with the civil service code”? Mr Rennick replied: “It doesn’t demonstrate compliance with the sort of behaviour that I would expect within a professional civil service office.”