Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by considering as mitigating factors the recommendation of Mr Jaffa¡¯s immediate supervisors that his actions warranted a reprimand and the fact that Mr Jaffa continued to perform for two further years (with positive reviews). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not attaching sufficient importance to the fact that Mr Jaffa held a position of trust as a Finance Assistant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had not overlooked relevant mitigating factors in imposing the sanction of separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision to suspend him without pay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was alert to the injury which the prolonged delay caused the Appellant. On the Appellant¡¯s complaint that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not address his complaint regarding the deduction by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA from his personal Provident Fund contributions upon his dismissal, apparently, to recoup an overpayment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the complaint and the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact on the part of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT when it determined these...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights by not rendering a fully reasoned judgment and had thus committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have examined and stated in its judgment whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant continued to fight in a severe manner causing physical injury. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have addressed the question as to whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had used physical force against a driver in April 2013, especially since...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminary denied the Appellant¡¯s motions for leave to respond to the answer to the appeal and his request for production of documents and evidence, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then considered the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the investigation was not ultra vires. Whilst the Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not initiate the investigation, the nature of Chief Conduct and Discipline Team duties gave him authority to refer the matter to SIU for investigation. Even if the initiation of the investigation gave...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT (by audio conference) as verified by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional hearings, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the summary dismissal decision was unlawful because the due process rights under IMO¡¯s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules were substantially violated. The Appellant had been charged with misconduct in the form of fraudulent activities undertaken to gain diplomatic accreditation, namely giving instructions to append an electronic signature to an official IMO communication without authorization or instruction by that colleague and misrepresenting his contractual status as internationally recruited in that communication. Noting that the Secretary-General of IMO considered the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr Rajan¡¯s motion for the appeal to be heard on an expedited basis as it had become moot as the ordinary case management constraints meant it could not have been heard any earlier. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law in holding that the Secretary-General was obliged to prove that Mr Rajan had the intention to mislead the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no doubt that Mr Rajan misrepresented the true situation more than once. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was Mr Rajan¡¯s responsibility to ascertain that he was providing accurate...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Ibrahim. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, agreeing with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that there was nothing illegal or warranting compensation in the investigation process and the investigation was not vitiated by procedural error or improper motive. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the bottle of wine disappeared immediately after Mr Ibrahim had handled it for the second time in front of the camera and then with his back obstructing the camera. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, apart from the direct link between the manipulation of the bottle of wine by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the Appellant and the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, noting that it would not have added any further value or clarification of the factual and legal issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General's cross-appeal was receivable, according to Article 9(4) of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding that the disciplinary investigation was flawed by procedural irregularities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the disciplinary decision was unlawful and, accordingly, that there could neither...