爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err when it held that ST/AI/2017 was the governing legal framework applicable to the case. 爆料网AT held that joint representation by 爆料网-Women, where the Appellant currently served, and 爆料网MIK, where the events in dispute occurred, was justified. 爆料网AT held that the circumstances also justified the granting of an opportunity to supplement the initial reply (and a corresponding right to reply). 爆料网AT held that, given that the Appellant had not contested the joint representation before 爆料网DT at the time and having been afforded the opportunity to answer the supplementary reply, the Appellant was estopped from raising the matter on appeal. 爆料网AT held that there had not been a violation of the OIOS Investigations Manual. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s contention that OIOS failed to provide rules or procedures to govern the case assessment process was baseless. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to find that the Administration’s response to the Appellant’s request for management evaluation was not a reviewable administrative decision and therefore 爆料网DT would not review it. On the Appellant’s claim that there was a procedural irregularity related to the signature and date of completion on the OIOS assessment report, 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT’s finding that only substantial procedural errors can render the administrative decision unlawful and the Appellant failed to explain how such a mistake affected the contested decision. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to show any error in the 爆料网DT’s finding that the OIOS decision not to investigate the Appellant’s complaint was reasonable and lawfully taken. 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 of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) not to launch an investigation into his complaint against another staff member, in which he claimed the staff member of 爆料网MIK had made false and malicious allegations against him. 爆料网DT rejected the application.
Legal Principle(s)
Only in particular situations, such as a case of serious and reasonable accusation, does a staff member have a right to an investigation against another staff member. OIOS has a broad discretion in the appreciation of the evidence before it.