Íæż½ã½ã

UNAT refused the Appellant’s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that there was nothing to support the Appellant’s submission that UNDT erred in finding that he had not exercised reasonable care by expecting the same standard of care from him as from the Operations Response Unit supervisor. UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that the Appellant was not on duty at the relevant time was fully supported by the facts and was not in error. Contrary to the Appellant’s submission, UNAT held that UNDT did not suggest that the Appellant intended to cause the loss or foresaw the loss, nor did the doctrine of mens rea have any application to the case. On the Appellant’s claim that the imposed sanction was disproportionate, unduly harsh, and absurd, UNAT held that UNDT was correct in its conclusion that the Secretary-General did not overlook the relevant mitigating factors. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error by UNDT on the issue of mitigation. UNAT recalled its jurisprudence that the level of sanction fell within the remit of the Administration and could only be reviewed in case of obvious absurdity and flagrant arbitrariness. UNAT held that the sanction was a reasonable exercise of the Administration’s broad discretion in disciplinary matters. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.