2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-976, Ganbold
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT had committed various errors of law, fact, and procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the whole reasoning of Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT was misconstrued and Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT did not properly examine the lawfulness of the disciplinary sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant awarded and signed a contract on behalf of Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµFPA, that she did not conduct any market research or consider other suppliers before doing so, that she had no authority to sign the contract and that she was involved in procurement activities in relation to another Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµFPA vendor. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that there was...