Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although no performance evaluation process was legally required for termination, an appropriate procedure should have been followed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA failed to indicate that the contract would be terminated before its expiration date if the staff member did not improve his performance, and the lack of fair warning rendered the decision to terminate unlawfully. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in part, rescinded the termination decision, and ordered reinstatement, with an in-lieu compensation of two months¡¯ net base salary.

The Applicant did not respond to a case management order. She was therefore no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of the proceedings which were deemed to have been abandoned. The matter was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The IOO audit, indeed, did not have the character of a disciplinary investigation into any possible wrongdoing(s), including misconduct, of the Applicant. Rather, as argued by the Applicant, it appears that no disciplinary process whatsoever was undertaken. Consequently, the Applicant was not afforded any of the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in para. 35(a)-(c) of the Judgment, namely (a) the right to be advised of the allegation of misconduct, (b) the right to comment thereupon, and (c) the right to be represented be a lawyer before the decision on misconduct was made and the...