Department of Justice v. Brinser
This text of 364 A.2d 511 (Department of Justice v. Brinser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
Opinion by
The Department of Justice (Appellant) appeals an adjudication of the Civil Service Commission (Commission) which modified a decision of the Attorney General removing Frank V. Brinser, III (Appellee) from his position as Drug Investigator I, regular status. We reverse.
Appellee was removed from his position with the Bureau of Drug Control as a result of a confrontation between himself and Agent Glendon.1 After Appel[257]*257lee’s removal hearing, the Commission found that there was not “just cause” for his removal.2 This adjudication overruled a decision of the Attorney General; however, the Commission did find there was good cause for .suspension .and accordingly modified the Attorney General’s decision.3
The Commission’s adjudication was tousled. While it stated the evidence was insufficient to warrant removal and while it clearly ordered reinstatement, it also noted that the evidence was sufficient to suspend Appellee for good cause. This allusion to a suspension was lamentable, because it implied that the suspension was being imposed for the very conduct censured by the Attorney General.
In Baron v. Civil Service Commission, 8 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 6, 8, 301 A.2d 427, 428 (1973), “[t]he Commission found that the evidence presented by DPW was not ‘sufficiently substantial to sustain removal of appellant [Dr. Baron] from his position. . . but it also found that “[t]he evidence of the appointing authority supports a misuse of the medical assistance program in a minor degree sufficient to justify a disciplinary action of suspension of appellant as Psychiatric Physician II.”
Further, what was before us in Baron was Dr. Baron’s appeal “to this Court from the Commission’s [258]*258denial of back pay,” not as in the case at bar, the employer’s appeal of the reinstatement order.
Here, the Commission found that the evidence presented by Appellant established the case as Appellant understood it to be. The Commission’s only reason for reinstatement was “because of his outstanding record as a Drug Investigator, and not to minimize the gravity of his action.”
Consequently, the Commission erred when it concluded as a matter of law that Appellee was suspended for “good cause” and not removed for “just cause.” Having decided the Commission erred in modifying the decision of the Attorney General as such, we need not reach the other issue raised.
Therefore, we
Order
And Now, this 21st day of September, 1976, the adjudication of the Pennsylvania Civil Service Commission is reversed and the appeal of the Department of Justice is hereby sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
364 A.2d 511, 26 Pa. Commw. 255, 1976 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-justice-v-brinser-pacommwct-1976.