2015-UNAT-572, Ivanov
UNAT held that the Appellant, though entitled to receive a summary of the findings of the investigation report, was not entitled to receive a copy of the full investigation report without showing exceptional circumstances, which he did not do and UNAT, therefore, upheld the findings of UNDT on this point. On compensation, UNAT noted that the Appellant presented no evidence to prove that the violation of the three-month deadline undermined the investigation and the outcome of the complaint, or that he suffered actual prejudice. UNAT held that the Administration’s offer of USD 1,000 was reasonable. UNAT quashed the UNDT’s order and award of USD 2,300 to the Appellant and affirmed the payment of USD 1,000 for the delay. UNAT held that it had considered all of the other grounds of appeal proffered by the Appellant and found that they were without merit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment, except for its order of additional compensation, which was vacated.
UNDT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to take no further action in respect of his defamation and harassment complaint. UNDT granted the application in part and awarded USD 2,300 as compensation for the delay.
The role of UNDT is not to rehear evidence that was before an investigation panel in order to determine if the decision is correct or not; the role of UNDT is to ensure that the process adopted by the investigation panel is transparent and that there is procedural fairness by adherence to the legal framework. Not every administrative wrongdoing will necessarily lead to an award of compensation; the claimant carries the burden of proof about the existence of factors causing damage to the victim’s psychological, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing.