¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish any error in fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the UNRWA DT judgment under appeal. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly characterized the contested administrative decision subject to its judicial review as a demotion and subsequent transfer, which was taken after disciplinary proceedings. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had not erred when, after conducting an adequate review of the requirements for the adoption of a disciplinary measure, it concluded that there had been misconduct and that the sanction was legal and proportionate to the offence. UNAT held that even though it was not established that the Appellant himself had benefitted from the irregular connections or that the situation existed on the watch of the previous Head Teachers, the Appellant could not use this to negate the basis of the findings made at the administrative level and by the judicial first instance. UNAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated negligent inactivity with regards to protecting UNRWA’s property and premises. UNAT held further that there was no merit in the claim of lack of guidance and training. UNAT held that the level of the relevant position involved what was required of the Appellant, as Assistant Head Teacher for many years and as Acting Head Teacher. UNAT held that the imposed sanction was well within the legal discretion of the UNRWA Administration, as it did not appear to be absurd, arbitrary, or tainted by extraneous reasons or bias, which, if proven, would otherwise be grounds for judicial review. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.