UNAT preliminary denied the Appellant’s motions for leave to respond to the answer to the appeal and his request for production of documents and evidence, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances. UNAT then considered the merits of the appeal. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s decision that the investigation was not ultra vires. Whilst the Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not initiate the investigation, the nature of Chief Conduct and Discipline Team duties gave him authority to refer the matter to SIU for investigation. Even if the initiation of the investigation gave...
Rule 101.1
Showing 1 - 2 of 2
Disciplinary matters / misconduct
Disciplinary measure or sanction
Facts (establishment of) / evidence
Investigation (see category: Investigation)
Proportionality of sanction
Investigation
Disciplinary matters / misconduct
Dismissal/separation
Fraud, misrepresentation and false certification
Termination (of appointment)
The Tribunal’s findings were that the Respondent had sufficiently substantiated his allegations against the Applicant. It also found that due process had been afforded to the Applicant. Given that the Applicant failed to abide by staff regulation 1.2 (b) and former staff rule 110.1, the Tribunal concluded that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was proportionate to the nature of the charges.