2017-UNAT-806, Maloof
UNAT held that the UNDT properly dismissed the Appellant’s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave was therefore not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that there was no legal basis for the Appellant to remain on administrative leave. UNAT noted that, even if there was an improper or unreasonable motive behind the decision to allow the contract to expire, the appeal was time-barred. UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that the Appellant had failed to provide evidence of any reassurance of reassignment to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, however, in the final analysis, these issues made no difference because his challenge to the decision of non-reassignment was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
The Applicant contested the decision to cancel his administrative leave without completing the investigation that had been initiated against him; the alleged refusal to abide by the terms of his temporary reassignment to Sudan; and the decision not to renew his contract. UNDT dismissed the application in its entirety.
The key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member’s terms and conditions of appointment. A decision to terminate administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action has no adverse legal consequences or impact and is accordingly not an administrative decision.