Santaniello, J.
The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the Superior Court’s decision dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal from the action of the defendant, the civil service commission of the city of New Britain. The commission had sustained the decision of the New Britain board of fire [30]*30commissioners to reduce the plaintiff in rank in the fire department from lieutenant to private. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The operative facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff, Alfred P. Cassella, Jr., commenced employment with the New Britain fire department in 1970. On November 18, 1975, he took a promotional examination for the post of fire lieutenant, and was promoted to that position in April of the following year. By a letter dated January 26,1981, the board of fire commissioners notified the plaintiff that it would be conducting a hearing to consider whether the examination had been “fixed” for his benefit, whether the plaintiff had violated various provisions of the city charter and the rules of the civil service commission, and whether disciplinary action should be taken against him.
At the hearing, the board received into evidence, over the objection of the plaintiff, several documents which tended to prove that the promotional examination, in fact, had been “fixed.” This evidence indicated that the plaintiffs father, Alfred P. Cassella, Sr., had paid $1000 to New Britain fire chief Raymond Galati to give to Alfred Pettinelli, personnel director of the city at the time Cassella, Jr., took the examination. The payment was made in exchange for Pettinelli’s assistance in “fixing” Cassella, Jr.’s examination to secure his promotion to fire lieutenant. No evidence, however, was produced at the hearing to implicate Cassella, Jr., in the “fixing” scheme, and Cassella, Jr., testified that he had had no knowledge of the impropriety. The board found that the plaintiff’s examination had been “fixed” by Pettinelli, but concluded that Cassella, Jr., had no knowledge of the irregularities. On the basis of these findings, the board reduced Cassella, Jr., in rank from lieutenant to private, but offered him the opportunity to take a new examination for the post of fire lieutenant.
[31]*31The plaintiff appealed his demotion to the defendant commission, pursuant to § 3921 of the charter of the city of New Britain. The commission unanimously sus[32]*32tained the board’s decision,2 and the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court.3 The court found that the board’s use of hearsay evidence did not violate due process, and that the evidence adduced at the hearing supported the board’s determination to demote the plaintiff. The court also found that the notice sent to Cassella, Jr., adequately apprised him of what the board would consider at the hearing. The court then dismissed the appeal.
From this determination, the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that the Superior Court erred (1) in concluding that he was afforded due process at the hearing before the board of fire commissioners, and (2) in concluding that the commission’s finding that he violated the city charter and personnel rules was supported by the evidence and not in excess of its authority. The Appellate Court held that the plaintiff was afforded a fair and impartial hearing and was not deprived of due process of law by the written hearsay evidence admitted by the board. Cassella v. Civil Service Commission, 4 Conn. App. 359, 372, 374, 494 A.2d 909 (1985). The Appellate Court also concluded that the [33]*33plaintiff had received adequate notice of the charges against him to enable him to prepare his defense, and that the plaintiff was properly demoted for just cause. Id., 374.
Upon a grant of certification, the plaintiff appealed, and now claims that the Appellate Court erred: (1) in finding that the board could properly rely solely on hearsay evidence to demote him from a rank in which he has served satisfactorily; (2) in failing to find that due process demands that a person with a property interest in his position has a right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses before being demoted; and (3) in finding that there was just cause to demote him when the board made a specific finding that he had no knowledge that his examination had been fixed. We disagree.
In addressing the first two issues raised by the plaintiff we need not look any further than the Appellate Court’s well reasoned determination. We find that the court’s analysis disposes of the plaintiff’s claims, and we expressly adopt its opinion as to these issues. While we also agree with the court’s holding as to the third issue, we feel that the lack of precedents in this state upon such an important issue warrants further discussion of the issue by this court.
Before the merits of the plaintiff’s third claim are addressed, it is important to state what is not at issue in this case. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant claims that the position of fire lieutenant was an unclassified civil service position, nor is there any claim that the plaintiff held a noncompetitive position. See New Britain Charter §§ 351, 352, 371, 372. There is also no claim that the plaintiff was provisionally appointed to the position of fire lieutenant. See id., § 375. Moreover, there is no challenge to the original examination itself. See id., § 372. Finally, neither the plaintiff nor the [34]*34defendant claims that the plaintiff was demoted because of lack of work or funds. See id., § 391; cf. Parretta v. New Britain, 185 Conn. 88, 440 A.2d 823 (1981).
Promotion in the New Britain fire department is governed by the charter of the city of New Britain, which states, in part, that “[t]he personnel director shall hold promotion tests whenever there shall be an opening in a superior class to be filled and no appropriate promotional list exists. The examination shall be open to those in inferior grade, the duties of which directly tend to fit the incumbents thereof for the performance of the duties of the superior grade.” New Britain Charter § 372 (1980). Rule VII of the rules of the civil service commission4 requires that “[a]ll . . . promotions to competitive positions in the classified service shall be made according to merit and fitness to be ascertained by a competitive examination . . . efficiency and seniority.” (Emphasis added.)
We have long recognized the purpose and importance of such examinations. In Ziomek v. Bartimole, 156 Conn. 604, 610, 244 A.2d 380 (1968), we stated that “[t]he object of providing for civil service examinations is to secure more efficient employees, promote better government, eliminate as far as practicable the element of partisanship and personal favoritism, protect the employees and the public from the spoils system and secure the appointment to public positions of those whose merit and fitness have been determined by proper examination.” See State ex rel. Chernesky v. Civil Service Commission, 141 Conn. 465, 469, 106 A.2d 713 (1954).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Santaniello, J.
The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the Superior Court’s decision dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal from the action of the defendant, the civil service commission of the city of New Britain. The commission had sustained the decision of the New Britain board of fire [30]*30commissioners to reduce the plaintiff in rank in the fire department from lieutenant to private. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The operative facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff, Alfred P. Cassella, Jr., commenced employment with the New Britain fire department in 1970. On November 18, 1975, he took a promotional examination for the post of fire lieutenant, and was promoted to that position in April of the following year. By a letter dated January 26,1981, the board of fire commissioners notified the plaintiff that it would be conducting a hearing to consider whether the examination had been “fixed” for his benefit, whether the plaintiff had violated various provisions of the city charter and the rules of the civil service commission, and whether disciplinary action should be taken against him.
At the hearing, the board received into evidence, over the objection of the plaintiff, several documents which tended to prove that the promotional examination, in fact, had been “fixed.” This evidence indicated that the plaintiffs father, Alfred P. Cassella, Sr., had paid $1000 to New Britain fire chief Raymond Galati to give to Alfred Pettinelli, personnel director of the city at the time Cassella, Jr., took the examination. The payment was made in exchange for Pettinelli’s assistance in “fixing” Cassella, Jr.’s examination to secure his promotion to fire lieutenant. No evidence, however, was produced at the hearing to implicate Cassella, Jr., in the “fixing” scheme, and Cassella, Jr., testified that he had had no knowledge of the impropriety. The board found that the plaintiff’s examination had been “fixed” by Pettinelli, but concluded that Cassella, Jr., had no knowledge of the irregularities. On the basis of these findings, the board reduced Cassella, Jr., in rank from lieutenant to private, but offered him the opportunity to take a new examination for the post of fire lieutenant.
[31]*31The plaintiff appealed his demotion to the defendant commission, pursuant to § 3921 of the charter of the city of New Britain. The commission unanimously sus[32]*32tained the board’s decision,2 and the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court.3 The court found that the board’s use of hearsay evidence did not violate due process, and that the evidence adduced at the hearing supported the board’s determination to demote the plaintiff. The court also found that the notice sent to Cassella, Jr., adequately apprised him of what the board would consider at the hearing. The court then dismissed the appeal.
From this determination, the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that the Superior Court erred (1) in concluding that he was afforded due process at the hearing before the board of fire commissioners, and (2) in concluding that the commission’s finding that he violated the city charter and personnel rules was supported by the evidence and not in excess of its authority. The Appellate Court held that the plaintiff was afforded a fair and impartial hearing and was not deprived of due process of law by the written hearsay evidence admitted by the board. Cassella v. Civil Service Commission, 4 Conn. App. 359, 372, 374, 494 A.2d 909 (1985). The Appellate Court also concluded that the [33]*33plaintiff had received adequate notice of the charges against him to enable him to prepare his defense, and that the plaintiff was properly demoted for just cause. Id., 374.
Upon a grant of certification, the plaintiff appealed, and now claims that the Appellate Court erred: (1) in finding that the board could properly rely solely on hearsay evidence to demote him from a rank in which he has served satisfactorily; (2) in failing to find that due process demands that a person with a property interest in his position has a right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses before being demoted; and (3) in finding that there was just cause to demote him when the board made a specific finding that he had no knowledge that his examination had been fixed. We disagree.
In addressing the first two issues raised by the plaintiff we need not look any further than the Appellate Court’s well reasoned determination. We find that the court’s analysis disposes of the plaintiff’s claims, and we expressly adopt its opinion as to these issues. While we also agree with the court’s holding as to the third issue, we feel that the lack of precedents in this state upon such an important issue warrants further discussion of the issue by this court.
Before the merits of the plaintiff’s third claim are addressed, it is important to state what is not at issue in this case. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant claims that the position of fire lieutenant was an unclassified civil service position, nor is there any claim that the plaintiff held a noncompetitive position. See New Britain Charter §§ 351, 352, 371, 372. There is also no claim that the plaintiff was provisionally appointed to the position of fire lieutenant. See id., § 375. Moreover, there is no challenge to the original examination itself. See id., § 372. Finally, neither the plaintiff nor the [34]*34defendant claims that the plaintiff was demoted because of lack of work or funds. See id., § 391; cf. Parretta v. New Britain, 185 Conn. 88, 440 A.2d 823 (1981).
Promotion in the New Britain fire department is governed by the charter of the city of New Britain, which states, in part, that “[t]he personnel director shall hold promotion tests whenever there shall be an opening in a superior class to be filled and no appropriate promotional list exists. The examination shall be open to those in inferior grade, the duties of which directly tend to fit the incumbents thereof for the performance of the duties of the superior grade.” New Britain Charter § 372 (1980). Rule VII of the rules of the civil service commission4 requires that “[a]ll . . . promotions to competitive positions in the classified service shall be made according to merit and fitness to be ascertained by a competitive examination . . . efficiency and seniority.” (Emphasis added.)
We have long recognized the purpose and importance of such examinations. In Ziomek v. Bartimole, 156 Conn. 604, 610, 244 A.2d 380 (1968), we stated that “[t]he object of providing for civil service examinations is to secure more efficient employees, promote better government, eliminate as far as practicable the element of partisanship and personal favoritism, protect the employees and the public from the spoils system and secure the appointment to public positions of those whose merit and fitness have been determined by proper examination.” See State ex rel. Chernesky v. Civil Service Commission, 141 Conn. 465, 469, 106 A.2d 713 (1954).
The civil service law provides for promotion in governmental employment according to merit and fitness [35]*35ascertained by competitive examination. Resnick v. Civil Service Commission, 156 Conn. 28, 30, 238 A.2d 391 (1968); State ex rel. McNamara v. Civil Service Commission, 128 Conn. 585, 588, 24 A.2d 846 (1942). The primary purpose of these laws is to guarantee that the meritorious secure jobs and to free public employees from the fear of personal and political reprisal. Resnick v. Civil Service Commission, supra, 31. These examinations not only protect the employees but also benefit the general public in that they tend to eradicate corruption as well as ensure that the persons with the necessary qualifications to discharge intelligently their duties pertaining to public office will do so. Id.
It cannot be overemphasized that proper competitive examinations are the cornerstone upon which an effective civil service system is built. Any violation of the law enacted for preserving this system, therefore, “ ‘is fatal because it weakens the system of competitive selection which is the basis of civil service legislation.’ ” Ziomek v. Bartimole, supra, quoting Civil Service Board v. Warren, 74 Ariz. 88, 91, 244 P.2d 1157 (1952). Strict compliance is necessarily required to uphold the sanctity of the merit system; Jones v. Civil Service Commission, 175 Conn. 504, 510, 400 A.2d 721 (1978); Walker v. Jankura, 162 Conn. 482, 490, 294 A.2d 536 (1972); good faith of the parties will not validate illegal appointments, nor will continued employment in an invalidly obtained position. Cf. Resnick v. Civil Service Commission, supra, 32; McAdams v. Barbieri, 143 Conn. 405, 420, 123 A.2d 182 (1956); Howe v. Civil Service Commission, 128 Conn. 35, 38, 20 A.2d 397 (1941). To excuse “good faith” violations of our civil service law “ ‘would open the door to abuses which the law was designed to suppress.’ ” Resnick v. Civil Service Commission, supra, 33, quoting State ex rel. Kos v. Adamson, 226 Minn. 177, 182-83, 32 N.W.2d 281 (1948).
[36]*36In the instant case, the board found that Pettinelli had “fixed” the plaintiff’s examination at the instigation of Cassella, Sr.; Cassella, Jr., thus received a promotion, not based on a competitive examination to determine his merit and fitness, but as the result of an illegally altered examination. Because Cassella, Jr.’s promotion was not made according to merit and fitness as ascertained by a competitive examination, his promotion is invalid. See Ziomek v. Bartimole, supra, 611; Resnick v. Civil Service Commission, supra.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff continues to argue that the board cannot demote him because there was no finding of misconduct on his part. Pursuant to § 392 of the city charter, the board of fire commissioners, subject to § 301 et seq. of the charter, may remove, suspend or otherwise penalize the officers, members and employees of the fire department. Section 392 provides in part that “[n]o person holding, by final appointment, an office or position classified and graded under the provisions of this act shall be removed, discharged or reduced in rank or pay except for just cause which shall not be political or religious; nor shall marriage or the greater financial need of others eligible for appointment or promotion be just cause for removal, discharge or reduction in rank.” (Emphasis added.) An examination of both the city charter and the rules of the civil service commission fails to reveal what is meant by “just cause.” Nowhere, however, does it state that just cause requires the board make a showing of personal misconduct to reduce a person in rank.5
[37]*37We have stated previously that “just cause” implies a reasonable ground for removal as distinguished from a frivolous or incompetent ground. Molino v. Board of Public Safety, 154 Conn. 368, 374-75, 225 A.2d 805 (1966); Riley v. Board of Police Commissioners, 147 Conn. 113, 118, 157 A.2d 590 (1960); McNiff v. Waterbury, 82 Conn. 43, 46, 72 A. 572 (1909). We have also stated that while the sufficiency of cause is for the board to decide, the question of whether the cause assigned constitutes grounds for removal, as a matter of law, is a question for the judiciary. Molino v. Board of Public Safety, supra, 375; Riley v. Board of Police Commissioners, supra; McNiff v. Waterbury, supra.
[38]*38In the present case, the plaintiffs failure to be promoted in accordance with the requirements of the charter of the city of New Britain and the rules of the civil service commission does constitute just cause for reduction in rank. Finding just cause in such a situation is consistent with both the charter and the commission’s rules as well as the underlying tenets of the civil service system itself.6 To hold otherwise would undercut the cornerstone upon which the system rests. The Appellate Court was correct in concluding that the dishonest examination procedure, despite a personal absolution of wrongdoing, was just cause to reduce Cassella, Jr., in rank.
We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.