�ٱ���Ƶapp

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by UNRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) UNAT Statute, UNAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that UNRWA DT’s exercise of discretion in not holding an oral hearing was reasonable and not an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT held that the “no difference” principle applied in the face of the clear and convincing documentary evidence supporting the Appellant’s misconduct based on the record, namely the testimony of the thirteen witnesses and five complainants that the Appellant had engaged in the prohibited corporal punishment. UNAT also held that the various allegations which the Appellant made against the other teachers and UNRWA DT were not supported by evidence and therefore had no merit. UNAT found no fault in UNRWA DT’s finding that the Appellant’s conduct towards students amounted to prohibited corporal punishment and serious misconduct. UNAT held that the disciplinary measure was fair and proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and in accordance with the relevant rules and directives. On the question of whether the Appellant’s due process rights were respected, UNAT held that the common law requirements of due process were met. UNAT held that the Appellant’s request to face his accusers must give way to the need to protect minor witnesses from the emotional distress the confrontation would entail. UNAT held that UNRWA did not err in finding that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s fixed-term appointment was lawful. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.