Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that: the Appellant was properly subjected to a disciplinary hearing; the disciplinary procedures operated fairly; the Appellant disclosed his part in the events at a time when he had no option but to do so; the Appellant did not report the fact he received the hospitality from a vendor; the Appellant substantially admitted the allegations; the Appellant put at risk the reputation and standing of the Ãå±±½ûµØProcurement Division; there was sufficient material before the Secretary-General, after a fair and impartial investigation, and having regard to the Appellant’s long service record, to reach a finding of serious misconduct; and the Appellant was given a full opportunity to make his case before a decision was taken as to the appropriate sanction. UNAT held that the conduct was established and serious and that the sanction was not unfair or disproportionate. UNAT noted that UNDT refused to substitute its judgment in this case and that UNAT must be deferential not only to the Secretary-General but also to UNDT, which is charged with finding facts. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.