����AV

UNAT had before it an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision when it held that Mr Siddiqi had not threatened to kill identified staff members but only had made an unspecified threat to kill “some” staff members. UNAT held that the statements of the three witnesses rendered clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant did not only utter an unspecified threat but that he had threatened to kill identified staff members. UNAT held that UNDT also erred in law and fact when it concluded that threat was not serious. UNAT held that, under the circumstances, it was a lawful and reasonable presumption of the Secretary-General to consider that Mr. Siddiqi’s threat was serious. UNAT held that in a situation such as the circumstances of this case, where a staff member in Afghanistan threatened to kill other identified staff members, the Tribunals should grant the Secretary-General a broad discretion as to the question of whether a threat is serious or not. UNAT held that the sanction was not unreasonable, absurd or disproportionate, that it was a reasonable exercise of the Secretary-General’s discretion, and that dismissal was neither unfair nor disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the sanction disproportionate and in substituting its opinion for that of the Administration. UNAT held that the key elements of Mr Siddiqi’s due process rights were respected. UNAT held that UNDT erred in criticising the investigation procedure used to collect the statements of the three key witnesses. UNAT granted the Secretary-General’s appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.