Ãå±±½ûµØ

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT’s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, UNAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. UNAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former Ãå±±½ûµØAdministrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under domestic criminal proceedings than would arise from those under investigation for misconduct pursuant to UNRWA’s Regulations and Rules. UNAT held that UNRWA DT could properly determine that the Appellant’s actions constituted misconduct despite his acquittal of the criminal charges brought against him. UNAT held that a staff member’s knowing possession of a large amount of a banned drug constituted serious misconduct. UNAT held that a reasonable presumption could be drawn that the Appellant participated in the illegal trade of Tramal based on his possession of a large amount of the drug, which also constituted serious misconduct. Noting that UNRWA DT may properly consider the nature of misconduct vis-à-vis the nature of the staff member’s post in determining whether a sanction is proportionate, UNAT agreed that termination was a proportionate sanction for the Appellant’s misconduct because his post was, in part, to combat drug abuse. With regards to the number of claims by the Appellant of legal or procedural error, UNAT held that the Appellant did not explain how the alleged errors prejudiced him or violated his due process rights. UNAT held that, even assuming arguendo that these errors occurred, none of them would be a ground to reverse the judgment and therefore there was no need for UNAT to address such claims. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.