�山����

The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it found that there was a breach of Mr Elobaid’s due process rights, as Mr Elobaid was correctly apprised of the allegations against him, which could lead to administrative action, and was afforded the opportunity to make representations against the measure taken. UNAT held that UNDT erred in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it assumed that the reprimand originated from Mr Ward, of the Chief Programme Support and Management Services at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who lacked the necessary delegated authority to issue a reprimand. UNAT held that even though Mr Ward signed the memorandum, the decision was taken on behalf of the High Commissioner. UNAT held that UNDT erred in a matter of law when it found that the facts of the case were not established to the requisite standard of proof. UNAT held that the evidence produced before UNDT demonstrated that the reprimand was based on “reasonable grounds”, which was sufficient to establish the facts to the applicable standard of proof. UNAT held that the issuance of the reprimand was a proper exercise of the discretion vested in the Administration. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.