Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Appellant’s appeal primarily challenged the decision of UNDT not to hold an oral hearing, purportedly denying him a fair trial and due process. UNAT noted that the reason for the decisions to temporarily limit the authority of the Applicant pending a management review was not in contention. UNAT held that the withdrawal of the delegations did not unduly detract from the Appellant’s core functions, though his discretion to interact with various stakeholders was significantly restricted and he was constrained by a firmer level of accountability and closer scrutiny of his performance. UNAT held that UNDT did not act improperly in the exercise of its discretion in terms of holding that further oral evidence would not assist in clarifying the issues in contention over and above identification of some inaccuracies, the resolution of which would not disturb the essential factual findings and the reasons for the decisions. UNAT held UNDT was correct in holding that the Executive Director was best placed to understand the legitimate managerial needs of the Organisation and enjoyed a margin of appreciation. UNAT held that the undisputed facts sufficiently demonstrated that there was a rational connection between the information available to the Executive Director, the reasons given for the contested decisions, and the purpose for which the decisions were taken. UNAT held that the decisions were tailored proportionally to the desired outcome without unduly restraining the Appellant from carrying out his job. UNAT held that the decisions were a legitimate, rational, and proportional exercise of the managerial prerogative. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.