Washington | A United Nations investigation into Australia's highest ranking official, Francis Gurry, has recommended action be taken against him for interfering in a procurement tender, but found no evidence on more serious allegations.
In wake of the findings, five US Congress members wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry on   April 28 demanding the Obama administration press for Dr Gurry's "immediate dismissal".
Dr Gurry, director-general of the UN's World Intellectual Property Organisation, has long faced two main allegations since heading the agency in 2008. 
Geneva's WIPO is the UN agency that rules on thousands of international patent and trademark applications.
Former WIPO officials, an American and an Australian, had linked Dr Gurry to ignoring diplomatic immunity rights of staff and the so-called "theft" of DNA from personal items of colleagues.
The items were seized to help Swiss police track a culprit who anonymously sent defamatory letters about Dr Gurry to him and WIPO staff in 2007.
A "highly confidential" excerpt of the UN's Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) investigation, obtained by The Australian Financial Review and tightly circulated last month by WIPO General Assembly Chair, Colombia's Gabriel Duque, said the DNA samples were taken from three WIPO staff without their knowledge.
"Although there are strong indications that Mr Gurry had a direct interest in the outcome of the DNA analysis, there is no evidence that he was involved in the taking of the DNA samples," the OIOS said.
The nine-page summary does not say who authorised the DNA seizure and sources in Geneva are concerned that Swiss police did not fully co-operate with the OIOS to identify who was involved.
Dr Gurry was found to have erred in favouring a Sydney technology supplier in the awarding of a contract, understood to be worth up to about 100,000 Swiss Francs. In 2013 he stopped the procurement process, changed the terms of reference and ordered the firm be added to the list of invitees.
He instructed staff to base their recommendation purely on technical competency and ignore the quoted cost of the Sydney firm, which was nearly double that of competitors.
"OIOS finds that in disregarding the financial weight of the predetermined evaluation criteria, Mr Gurry acted in non-compliance of WIPO's procurement instructions," the excerpt states.
It concludes the conduct of Dr Gurry "may be inconsistent" with standards expected and recommends the Chair of the WIPO General Assembly consider appropriate action against him.
Dr Gurry did not respond to requests for comment. He has previously admitted to the Financial Review he knew the Sydney firm's owner, but insisted they were not friends. For several years he pushed to improve the quality of WIPO's technology and broaden the range of contractors it hires, he said in 2014.
The summary report says there is no evidence Dr Gurry gained any financial or personal benefit on the procurement. The Financial Review does not suggest the Sydney firm did anything wrong.
Sources in Geneva say there is a heated dispute between countries over whether to release the full report.
WIPO General Assembly Chair Ambassador Duque has so far declined, citing rules saying Dr Gurry must be consulted on whether it can be published.
A US State Department spokeswoman said US Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva Pamela Hamamoto has asked Mr Duque for "maximum transparency, including making the report available to member states, redacted if necessary to protect witnesses and other people involved in the investigation".
"It is the United States' belief that sharing the report is important in order to assess accurately its findings and recommendations, and for member states to fulfil their collective responsibility for oversight of the organisation."