¹ú²úAV

UNRWA DT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in fact or in law such as to vitiate its judgment, except with regards to the award of compensation. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not overstep its role to judicially review the administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure on the staff member and terminating his appointment. UNAT held that the Administration had failed to demonstrate that the staff member had committed the serious misconduct he had been charged with, because not only did the proceedings fail to provide him with an adequate opportunity to defend himself breaching his right to due process, but also there was not enough evidence supporting the accusation. UNAT held that the administrative investigation was flawed because it did not rely on trustworthy evidence since the second investigation report appeared to be based mostly on hearsay or inconsistent testimonies not subject to cross-examination. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly concluded that there was a breach of due process rights. UNAT held that the illegality of the termination stemmed from two different sources and the rescission of the administrative decision ordered by UNRWA DT had to be affirmed. UNAT held that the compensation in lieu of reinstatement, established at four years’ net base salary, had to be partially vacated because UNRWA DT had not demonstrated sufficient reason to exceed the average statutory limit of two years. UNAT held that the compensation for moral damages seemed adequate, given the well-founded reasoning of UNRWA DT about the important negative consequences created by a serious sanction as the one illegally suffered by this staff member. UNAT upheld the appeal in part, affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment in part and reduced the compensation in lieu of reinstatement to two years’ net base salary.