UNAT held that, whilst not all the allegations of misconduct with which the staff member was charged were proven, it was established by UNDT that the Appellant failed to apply formal methods of solicitation in respect of contracts, in violation of UNFPA Financial Regulations, Rules and Procurement Procedures and also failed to refer a contract to the UNFPA Headquarters Contracts Review Committee, in violation of further norms. UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any errors of fact or law warranting reversal of the impugned judgment. UNAT held that UNDT correctly declined to accept...
Showing 1 - 2 of 2
Disciplinary matters / misconduct
Disciplinary measure or sanction
Dismissal/separation
Procurement irregularities
Separation from service
Termination of appointment (see also, Termination of appointment)
Termination (of appointment)
Disciplinary sanction
Referral for accountability
Disciplinary matters / misconduct
Disciplinary measure or sanction
Fraud, misrepresentation and false certification
Procurement irregularities
UNAT held that UNDT had committed various errors of law, fact, and procedure. UNAT held that the whole reasoning of UNDT was misconstrued and UNDT did not properly examine the lawfulness of the disciplinary sanction. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant awarded and signed a contract on behalf of UNFPA, that she did not conduct any market research or consider other suppliers before doing so, that she had no authority to sign the contract and that she was involved in procurement activities in relation to another UNFPA vendor. Further, UNAT held that there was...