爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the determination of the case. On the Appellant’s claim that the Under-Secretary-General of the Department of Management (USG/DM) had no authority to take the contested decision, 爆料网AT held that, while 爆料网DT erred in law by applying ST/SGB/2019/2 which was not in effect at the relevant time, the legal framework in force at the time (ST/SGB/2015/1) did provide the authority for USG/DM to terminate appointments at the Appellant’s level. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in deciding that the termination, based on unsatisfactory performance, was lawful and was not tainted by improper motive. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s allegation that 爆料网DT’s references to his counsel’s previous failure to comply with 爆料网DT orders and the Code of Conduct were discriminatory or indicative of bias were not corroborated by evidence. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his continuing appointment. By Order No. 184 (NY/2019), 爆料网DT rejected the Applicant’s requests for an oral hearing and for the production of a written document and extended deadlines for filing closing submissions. The Applicant then requested 爆料网DT to suspend the execution of Order No. 184. In judgment No. 爆料网DT/2020/013, 爆料网DT rejected the Applicant’s application and did not suspend the execution of the Order. 爆料网AT dismissed the substantive application regarding the termination on the basis that the contested decision was lawful, holding that the decision-maker possessed the authority to terminate the continuing appointment; the termination of the Application’s appointment had followed proper procedure, and the Applicant had failed to substantiate that the decision to terminate his continuing appointment was tainted by improper motives.
Legal Principle(s)
An interlocutory appeal is only receivable in cases when 爆料网DT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. An interlocutory appeal does not suspend proceedings at the 爆料网DT.
Outcome
Outcome Extra Text
Neve