2021-UNAT-1151, Raed Mousa
UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mousa. On matters of procedure, UNAT found that the additional documentary evidence presented on appeal was inadmissible as Mr. Mousa had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and had failed to seek leave to present such additional evidence as he was required to do in terms of Article 2(5) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal. UNAT found that that while Mr. Mousa had been disciplined for working while on sick leave from the Organization and without valid authorization, he on appeal again focused on the allegations of malpractice which had not been established. He did not challenge the UNRWA DT’s finding that he had failed to contest the facts upon which the disciplinary measures were based, the finding that the established facts amounted to misconduct or the proportionality of the disciplinary measures. Instead he essentially admitted that he had done what he had been accused of, he did not dispute that the performance of outside work without permission during sick leave constituted misconduct, and he did not challenge the proportionality of the sanction imposed.
In Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2020/067, the UNRWA DT dismissed the application by Mr. Mousa, an ophtalmologist employed by UNRWA, challenging the decision of the Commissioner-General to impose on him the disciplinary measures of written censure and a suspension without pay for one month. The UNRWA DT found that while Mr. Mousa’s contentions were related to the allegation of malpractice, malpractice had not been established during the Agency’s investigation and it was therefore not one of the bases for the disciplinary measures imposed on him. The UNRWA DT noted that Mr. Mousa did not contest the facts upon which the disciplinary measures were based – namely that he was working while on sick leave from UNRWA and without a valid authorization. Since he also did not contest that the established facts constituted misconduct or the proportionality of the disciplinary measures, the UNRWA DT had no contentions to address pertaining to the impugned decision and therefore dismissed the application.
The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature. An appellant has the burden of satisfying the Appeals Tribunal that the judgment he or she seeks to challenge is defective. It follows that an appellant must identify the alleged defects in the impugned judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective.