�山����

The Tribunal found the application receivable because the Applicant filed a timely request for management evaluation. Additionally, the Tribunal was satisfied with the Applicant’s documentation regarding technical issues with the e-Filing portal that he filed to support his claim of exceptional circumstances for filing his application late. Lastly, to the extent that the resignation of the Applicant was instigated by the Respondent or his agents, the Tribunal found that this was an administrative decision capable of being challenged. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had misrepresented his personal history, education, work experiences and criminal conviction but that there was no proof that UNICEF was aware of these misrepresentations at the time of the decision to appoint him a Local Security Officer in 2009. The Tribunal held that UNICEF followed proper procedure in mandating its Senior Security Advisor to question the Applicant on 15 January 2015 rather than initiate a disciplinary process. The Office of Internal Audit and Investigation duly investigated the false claims in the Applicant’s P-11 and the CV he submitted to UNICEF when he applied for his job and followed it up with the interview. The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not been coerced into resigning but rather, he choose to resign to avoid a disciplinary process. Further, he had thirty days after his resignation letter was received to withdraw it if he felt that his rights had been breached but he did not do so. The Tribunal held that no duty existed on the part of UNICEF in the face of the Applicant’s resignation to continue to issue charges.