Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the allegations of irregularity raised by the Appellant were supported by evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was hard to comprehend how the Appellant¡¯s post suddenly became redundant when at the same time around 75 per cent of its functions were to be transferred to a consultant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that even though the new organisational structure was not approved until September 2013, as early as June 2013, the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post had already been decided and was communicated to him by his supervisor, against whom the Appellant filed a complaint of abuse of power. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that following the Appellant¡¯s request for decision review, the Administration was obligated to provide clear and sufficient reasons justifying the lawfulness of its conduct but failed to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged conflict of interest required a more extensive and detailed consideration and discussion by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding that the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s appointment and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s related actions were not tainted by irregularities or improper motives, in breach of the Appellant¡¯s rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law by holding that the application against the decision to recruit a consultant was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to declare that his employment was affected. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered the Commissioner-General to pay the Appellant compensation in the amount of three months¡¯ net base salary.