-0f~mennorandum of 7-y 1987, frcm the Assistant Secretmy- Genesal,-,tothe ~~,werenotkmwntohin~. I-Jmmer, thel?hbmalfindlsnofllhstantial.difference beizweenwhatthe- Secretary-GepKtral, DPI, told the Applicant on 16 April 1987, as a mason for hisseparationcrrresi~~,andwhatthe7May~~sets0sR. Inany~,thereisevi~thattbeApplicantacceptedthatthe ~~ti~~withinitsrights~makewhateverchangesit~idered mcewary to impzwe the efficiency of the Dqmtmmt of Public Informatim. mis is clear from his letter of 20 April 1987 to the !%cmbrySeneral inwhichhe stated interaliathat: "1 fullyreccgnizethe rightoftheb%r-Secmtaq-Gemral toadministerher DepartmentiIltht2Way witibhhhshe feelsmo&cmfortable.vl AtthatstagetheApplicant, . ~toreoords,neitheraskedImrreceivedanyf~reescmsforhis separatian. In acklition, on 29 April 1987, the Applicant wrute to the Assistant Lsecmhq-, amM: "Ishauldliketoamfirmthatshuuldthe SecrebqWdecideto~temy~ appOintmnt, as of 31 ZQKJU& 1987, Mder the last pamgram of Staff Regulation 9.1(a), I will not contest such decision. . Insudxcase,itismy~ that1will mceivetherepatriationgrant, 3months salaryinlieuof accruedannualleaveanda ty of 24 mxkhs salary." 2ct. TheApplicantnowslxtesthatz wuldbepmwntedtothesecremy~ on the basis of anmmbtmtiatedallegaticnofsho~or deficiencies; . ..O. - 13 - Helateramcludes: II . . . lbthisday,theApplicantisnotcwtainofthemason forthisaction[torelievehimofhisduties]. Heonly )awrws~t,in~~ofhisrank,hehadnochoicebutto aaxptanagreedterminationofhis -appo= I 18 . . . . However,inviewoftheabence of any significant difference between the 7 May 1987 mesaorandumandthe nmsonsgivenfmthe~licant8s separatian,theTr~finds~basisforanysuggestianthatthe~ tenninationisnowopentoattacJ~ Mo~~,theTrtilfindsnoevidence to sqgestthatpemonaldifficultiesbelmaen thepgplicantandhis Under-Eiem&aqWm*~factorinhisseparatian.Far example, it appears fmn the Applicant's persomelfiles thathewas amsideringresignationasearlyas 24 February1986,beforethenew -- asismedherduties. XII. Afewperipheral issues~tobedisposedof.'Ihe~nust reoord its disapgmval at the F&spondent~s delay of nearly eight months in filing his answer before the JAB. Hcwever,thereisnothingtoshcwthat thePipplicantsufferedanysignificantinjuryfrowthis. XIII. Ihe~~cant~lainedtkaathewasneitkrergiventhe~f~11 receptiannorsentaletterofa~iatianatthetimeofhis~~~. 'ihislatterhasbeenrxrtrigM,anditisnawtoolatetoarrange~ farewelhmxptim- afternearlythmeyears. TheApplicantcites Judgeme& No. 401, Upadhya (1987) in sqqqzt of same of his arguments, but theTribunalfindsthatthe~iderationsofthatcase-dealingwith ~1ained~~~the~stratioainspiteofa~ti~Lry thePanelcnDischminationtiotherGrievances - donotatallapplyin thepresentoase. TheTJAhmalalsoholdsthathadtheletterof 7~1987,franthe~~canttOtheAssiStant~~,~, beenactedupon,~oftkbe~~catiansthatfoll~covldhavebeen avoided - forthiscmissicmthe Reqmxk&isopentorepiroof. - 14 - XIV. Since#elegala.rgmmh advamedbytheApplicantarenot acceptable,theonlysuggestianthatthe~~dllakFsitselftomdkeis thattheRespx%&skmldsericmslycxmsiderwhetheranather letter fully explainingand~patirqthe&plkantanildmtbesenttchim,evm moughtheTribunalregamk~letterof7 Ilbcmbr 1988, bhich the m $wrehry~for~tion&~wrotetotheApplicant, aslxrbmmttoanapol~internsoftheJAB8s~tion. BUtby givingsuitablecirculati~and~~citytoanewletter-~~ insuitablektlletinboazdsand~it~mtnmxthan5O~ thattheApplicantmi~supply,the~~~lsaybe~lawledtorest. This~l~ianof~Tribunal,arrdalsothefactthataaoWofthis . pQe.mntwill fonnpartoftheApplicant~spersmml file should king scme amforttothsApplicant -em?nifhisclaimtimrmetarydamagesand . ampematimcarmotbelegally~ . JeXCllU2ZNXEXMN Vice+msident,gresidirq Geneva, 16 May 1990 