Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it concluded that the Administration’s decision was unlawful and that the sanction imposed was disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the behaviour triggering it. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it ordered rescission of the sanction and compensation in lieu thereof and substituted the sanction imposed for a lesser one. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had broad discretion to determine whether the assault amounted to serious misconduct and to determine the appropriate disciplinary measure. UNAT held that all the relevant facts on which the sanction was based were satisfactorily established such that the decision-maker was in a position to adequately weigh all of them and that the Administration fully complied with its duty to investigate the facts, which were established in the preliminary report. UNAT held that the mental health status of Mr Ouriques was considered upon receipt of the information provided and the Administration was under no duty to inquire further into his mental state. UNAT held that the Administration exercised its discretion in a reasonable manner. UNAT noted that the sanction imposed on Mr Ouriques was not the most severe sanction and that the Administration took into account his long, satisfactory service, amongst other mitigating factors. UNAT held that the Administration’s decision was lawful and the sanction imposed was proportionate. UNAT granted the Secretary-General’s appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment. Judge Halfeld dissented.