Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On the alleged procedural error of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was well within the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed this ground of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, affirming the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR denied her the opportunity to respond to the removal decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was within the discretion of the Secretary-General to decide to remove her from the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly judged the validity of the Secretary-General¡¯s exercise of discretion in administrative matters and affirmed the finding by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the withdrawal of the Appellant from the post was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s placement on SLWFP as a SIBA was in accordance with the relevant Staff Rule. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s failure to assign the Appellant to an alternate post commensurate with her grade, training, skills and experience and its failure to recommend her for any other job for 52 months was unacceptable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as long as the Appellant remained a staff member, she was not only entitled to be paid, but she also had a right to be given work. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly awarded compensation for the moral damage she suffered from the illegality committed by keeping her on SLWFP as a SIBA for more than four years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the award of USD 15,000 adequate and dismissed the ground of appeal requesting a higher award. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.