Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding regarding the application of ST/AI/2002/3, namely that as the provisions of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Separation Policy contravened the ones in ST/AI/2002/3, the latter should apply, was an error of law and fact as ST/AI/2002/3 was not applicable to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the timing of the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s permanent contract for unsatisfactory service meant that a new procedure should have been initiated based on the new period of reference. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be unreasonable to require the Administration to restart the termination process if a new performance appraisal is completed before a final termination decision is taken, which would potentially place the Administration in an endless cycle where it could never be in a position to terminate the appointment of a staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that legal certainty required administrative issuances to be applied in a predictable manner and once the procedure foreseen in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Separation Policy was initiated, it should be followed through. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the separation was unlawful as there was no formal request for rebuttal or formal report of harassment to be resolved. Noting that the Appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to improve her performance and that her performance ratings from 2006 to 2008 justified her separation from service, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the impugned decision constituted a reasonable and lawful exercise of discretion in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Separation Policy and that due process was adhered to by the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the separation was lawful and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rescinding the termination of the Appellant¡¯s appointment and awarding compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.