�山����

Performance �山���� The Tribunal finds that this �山���� was not reflected in the Applicant’s ePAS and was not placed on the Applicant’s Official Status File. The Tribunal concludes that the Performance �山���� issued to the Applicant has not, in and of itself, affected his legal rights. Having found that his legal rights were not affected by the decision to issue the Performance �山����, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the Applicant’s other submissions in relation to this issue. Complaint of harassment and discrimination The Tribunal considers that, having received allegations of harassment and discrimination, and having received an undertaking to provide evidence to support those allegations, it was contrary to the policy set out in ST/SGB/2008/5 for the USG/DSS to conclude, without requesting further particulars or evidence from the Applicant, that there were insufficient grounds to warrant a fact-finding investigation. The Tribunal finds that the decision was procedurally flawed and is accordingly rescinded. The Tribunal found that the Performance �山���� issued to the Applicant did not, in and of itself, affect his legal rights and dismissed this element of the application. The Tribunal found that having received an undertaking to provide evidence to support allegations of discrimination and harassment, it was contrary to the policy set out in ST/SGB/2008/5 for the USG/DSS to conclude, without requesting further particulars or evidence from the Applicant, that there were insufficient grounds to warrant a fact-finding investigation. The Tribunal found that the decision was procedurally flawed and therefore rescinded the decision. The Respondent was ordered to pay USD3,000 in compensation to the Applicant for the distress caused by the decision.