2019-UNAT-974, Salah
UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify grounds for his appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant’s case was fully and fairly considered. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly based its conclusion about the legality of the termination decision on the medical assessment by the medical board and without medical findings of its own. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s appointment on medical grounds was a reasonable and valid exercise of UNRWA’s discretion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof of demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as to warrant its reversal. UNAT held that new issues raised by the Appellant were not receivable, as they were not brought before UNRWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time for consideration by UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment on medical grounds. UNRWA DT dismissed his application, finding that no reasons had been advanced to show that the termination decision was the product of substantive or procedural irregularity.
The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature, and it is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. UNAT can only review the recommendation of a medical board if there is evidence of improper motive or some substantive or procedural irregularity. An appellant has the burden of satisfying UNAT that the judgment he or she seeks to challenge is defective.