Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on questions of fact by ignoring or failing to examine what the Appellant considered to be evidence, which constituted mere allegations and unsubstantiated argumentation on his part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not support his submission by any grounds which would bring the issue within the remit of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Noting that the Appellant relied upon the statements and observations which he had brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a litigant¡¯s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not the task of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT (or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT) to step into the Administration¡¯s role and repeat the Retention Panel procedure, or to assess the staff members¡¯ possibilities during the downsizing exercises or post abolition. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no procedural flaw by the Retention Panel was established by the Appellant before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and no irregularity could be inferred from an undated document, which supposedly listed his post as ¡°non-abolished¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the issue of the non-initiation of a preliminary investigation was adequately considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as not being part of the Appellant¡¯s management evaluation request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the failure to undertake that kind of investigation does not constitute sufficient ground to make the impugned decision illegal or to render incorrect the first instance court¡¯s conclusions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not shown any real error of fact or law in the impugned judgment which would warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.