OPINION OF THE COURT
ROBERTS, Justice.
Appellant, V.J.R. Bar Corporation, holds a liquor license issued by appellee, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. On March 22, 1973, the manager and two other employees of appellant were charged with participating in gambling on the licensed premises. The Municipal Court dismissed these charges. On November 27, 1973, the Board issued a citation against appellant and, after a hearing, imposed a fine of $350.00 because it found that appellant “by its servants, agents or employees permitted gambling on the licensed [324]*324premises, on March 22, 1973.” The court of common pleas reversed the order of the Board but the Commonwealth Court reversed the order of the court of common pleas and reinstated the order of the Board. We granted appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal to decide whether the Board may impose sanctions upon a liquor licensee when it finds that gambling occurred on the premises, even though criminal charges based on the same activity have been dismissed.
The Liquor Code, Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, § 471, as amended, 47 P.S. § 4-471 (Supp.1977) authorizes disciplinary action by the Board for any violation of the laws of the Commonwealth relating to liquor or for “any other sufficient cause shown.” In accordance with the clear language of the statute, it has been held that “sufficient cause” is not limited to violations of law. In re Quaker City Development Company, 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 13, 365 A.2d 683 (1976); Petty Liquor License Case, 216 Pa.Super. 55, 258 A.2d 874 (1969).
“If the appellant had violated any liquor law, on or off the premises, no doubt would exist as to the board’s right to revoke the license, but the act expressly states that that is not the only cause for which the board may take such action. It may do so ‘upon any other sufficient cause shown.’ Those words mean something. They cannot be ignored or deleted. Obviously they are placed in the statute for a definite purpose. They signify that the legislature intended to give to the board a certain supervisory power over the conduct of a licensee after a license has been granted.”
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 142 Pa.Super. 54, 57, 15 A.2d 851, 852 (1940). Any other conclusion would thwart the command of the Legislature that all the provisions of the Act “shall be liberally construed” for the “protection of the public welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the Commonwealth,” and to “prohibit forever the open saloon.” 47 P.S. § l-104(a); accord, Tahiti Bar, Inc. Liquor License [325]*325Case, 395 Pa. 355, 150 A.2d 112 (1959); Petty Liquor License Case, supra; J-J Bar, Inc. Liquor License Case, 210 Pa.Super. 346, 234 A.2d 7 (1967).
We stated in Tahiti Bar,
“There is perhaps no other area of permissible state action within which the exercise of the police power of a state is more plenary than in the regulation and control of the use and sale of alcoholic beverages. . . . [A] state may adopt such measures as are reasonably appropriate or needful to render the exercise of that power effective.”
Id. at 360, 150 A.2d at 115. The “other sufficient cause” provision serves this purpose because it “is almost impossible to anticipate all the actions that may justify” enforcement. In re Quaker City Development Company, supra at 16, 365 A.2d at 684.
Based on the plain meaning of the statute, courts have upheld the Board’s imposition of penalties for a variety of conduct not expressly prohibited by the Liquor Code but reasonably related to the sale and use of alcoholic beverages on licensed premises. See Tahiti Bar, Inc. Liquor License Case, supra (prohibiting association in licensed establishments between entertainers and patrons); Golden Bar, Inc. v. Liquor License Case No. 1, 193 Pa. Super. 400, 165 A.2d 285 (1960) (same); In re Ciro’s Lounge, Inc., 24 Pa.Cmwlth. 589, 358 A.2d 141 (1976) (noisy and disorderly conduct); Sobel Liquor License Case, 211 Pa.Super. 129, 235 A.2d 622 (1967) (sale of drugs on premises); Dubin Liquor License Case, 210 Pa.Super. 346, 234 A.2d 7 (1967) (same); Reiter Liquor License Case, 173 Pa.Super. 552, 98 A.2d 465 (1953) (presence of prostitutes, lewd acts, obscene language and noisy and disorderly conditions on premises). Likewise, it has long been held that the Board can impose sanctions for gambling on licensed premises. See Matter of Marge & Jack, Inc., 82 Pa.Cmwlth. 398, 379 A.2d 900 (1977); In re Quaker City Development Company, supra; Loyal Order of Moose, St Marys Lodge No. 146, Liquor License Case, 210 Pa.Super. 464, 234 A.2d 25 (1967); Bayer Liquor License Case, 200 Pa.Super. 210, 188 A.2d 819 (1963); Commonwealth v. Lyons, supra.
[326]*326That one has not been convicted of criminal charges for certain conduct does not act as a bar to civil action based on the same conduct. Pennsylvania has recognized this principle, see Hutchinson v. Merchants’ and Mechanics’ Bank of Wheeling, 41 Pa. 42 (1861) (theft); Commonwealth v. Croushore, 145 Pa. 157, 22 A. 807 (1891) (injunction for nuisance); Morch v. Raubitschek, 159 Pa. 559, 28 A. 369 (1894) (action in assumpsit); Wilson v. Wilson, 100 Pa.Super. 451 (1930) (divorce) and applied it to civil enforcement proceedings undertaken by administrative authorities, see Commonwealth v. Funk, 323 Pa. 390, 186 A. 65 (1936) (revocation of driver’s license authorized under Motor Vehicle Code despite licensee’s acquittal of criminal charges for underlying conduct); Commonwealth v. Abraham, 7 Pa.Cmwlth. 535, 300 A.2d 831 (1973) (same). The reason for this rule is that the administrative action is civil, not criminal, in nature, Tahiti Bar, Inc. Liquor License Case, supra; Commonwealth v. Funk, supra; Bayer Liquor License Case, supra, designed only for the protection of the public interest through exercise of the police power, e. g., Tahiti Bar, Inc. Liquor License Case, supra, in which the burden of proof is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in criminal prosecutions, but only proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Funk, supra; Petty Liquor License Case, supra; Summitt Hill Road and Gun Club Liquor Case, 184 Pa.Super. 584, 135 A.2d 781 (1957).
Thus, the Liquor Control Board may impose sanctions against license holders where the underlying conduct does not produce any criminal charges, Matter of Marge & Jack, Inc., supra; In re Quaker City Development Company,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION OF THE COURT
ROBERTS, Justice.
Appellant, V.J.R. Bar Corporation, holds a liquor license issued by appellee, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. On March 22, 1973, the manager and two other employees of appellant were charged with participating in gambling on the licensed premises. The Municipal Court dismissed these charges. On November 27, 1973, the Board issued a citation against appellant and, after a hearing, imposed a fine of $350.00 because it found that appellant “by its servants, agents or employees permitted gambling on the licensed [324]*324premises, on March 22, 1973.” The court of common pleas reversed the order of the Board but the Commonwealth Court reversed the order of the court of common pleas and reinstated the order of the Board. We granted appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal to decide whether the Board may impose sanctions upon a liquor licensee when it finds that gambling occurred on the premises, even though criminal charges based on the same activity have been dismissed.
The Liquor Code, Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, § 471, as amended, 47 P.S. § 4-471 (Supp.1977) authorizes disciplinary action by the Board for any violation of the laws of the Commonwealth relating to liquor or for “any other sufficient cause shown.” In accordance with the clear language of the statute, it has been held that “sufficient cause” is not limited to violations of law. In re Quaker City Development Company, 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 13, 365 A.2d 683 (1976); Petty Liquor License Case, 216 Pa.Super. 55, 258 A.2d 874 (1969).
“If the appellant had violated any liquor law, on or off the premises, no doubt would exist as to the board’s right to revoke the license, but the act expressly states that that is not the only cause for which the board may take such action. It may do so ‘upon any other sufficient cause shown.’ Those words mean something. They cannot be ignored or deleted. Obviously they are placed in the statute for a definite purpose. They signify that the legislature intended to give to the board a certain supervisory power over the conduct of a licensee after a license has been granted.”
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 142 Pa.Super. 54, 57, 15 A.2d 851, 852 (1940). Any other conclusion would thwart the command of the Legislature that all the provisions of the Act “shall be liberally construed” for the “protection of the public welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the Commonwealth,” and to “prohibit forever the open saloon.” 47 P.S. § l-104(a); accord, Tahiti Bar, Inc. Liquor License [325]*325Case, 395 Pa. 355, 150 A.2d 112 (1959); Petty Liquor License Case, supra; J-J Bar, Inc. Liquor License Case, 210 Pa.Super. 346, 234 A.2d 7 (1967).
We stated in Tahiti Bar,
“There is perhaps no other area of permissible state action within which the exercise of the police power of a state is more plenary than in the regulation and control of the use and sale of alcoholic beverages. . . . [A] state may adopt such measures as are reasonably appropriate or needful to render the exercise of that power effective.”
Id. at 360, 150 A.2d at 115. The “other sufficient cause” provision serves this purpose because it “is almost impossible to anticipate all the actions that may justify” enforcement. In re Quaker City Development Company, supra at 16, 365 A.2d at 684.
Based on the plain meaning of the statute, courts have upheld the Board’s imposition of penalties for a variety of conduct not expressly prohibited by the Liquor Code but reasonably related to the sale and use of alcoholic beverages on licensed premises. See Tahiti Bar, Inc. Liquor License Case, supra (prohibiting association in licensed establishments between entertainers and patrons); Golden Bar, Inc. v. Liquor License Case No. 1, 193 Pa. Super. 400, 165 A.2d 285 (1960) (same); In re Ciro’s Lounge, Inc., 24 Pa.Cmwlth. 589, 358 A.2d 141 (1976) (noisy and disorderly conduct); Sobel Liquor License Case, 211 Pa.Super. 129, 235 A.2d 622 (1967) (sale of drugs on premises); Dubin Liquor License Case, 210 Pa.Super. 346, 234 A.2d 7 (1967) (same); Reiter Liquor License Case, 173 Pa.Super. 552, 98 A.2d 465 (1953) (presence of prostitutes, lewd acts, obscene language and noisy and disorderly conditions on premises). Likewise, it has long been held that the Board can impose sanctions for gambling on licensed premises. See Matter of Marge & Jack, Inc., 82 Pa.Cmwlth. 398, 379 A.2d 900 (1977); In re Quaker City Development Company, supra; Loyal Order of Moose, St Marys Lodge No. 146, Liquor License Case, 210 Pa.Super. 464, 234 A.2d 25 (1967); Bayer Liquor License Case, 200 Pa.Super. 210, 188 A.2d 819 (1963); Commonwealth v. Lyons, supra.
[326]*326That one has not been convicted of criminal charges for certain conduct does not act as a bar to civil action based on the same conduct. Pennsylvania has recognized this principle, see Hutchinson v. Merchants’ and Mechanics’ Bank of Wheeling, 41 Pa. 42 (1861) (theft); Commonwealth v. Croushore, 145 Pa. 157, 22 A. 807 (1891) (injunction for nuisance); Morch v. Raubitschek, 159 Pa. 559, 28 A. 369 (1894) (action in assumpsit); Wilson v. Wilson, 100 Pa.Super. 451 (1930) (divorce) and applied it to civil enforcement proceedings undertaken by administrative authorities, see Commonwealth v. Funk, 323 Pa. 390, 186 A. 65 (1936) (revocation of driver’s license authorized under Motor Vehicle Code despite licensee’s acquittal of criminal charges for underlying conduct); Commonwealth v. Abraham, 7 Pa.Cmwlth. 535, 300 A.2d 831 (1973) (same). The reason for this rule is that the administrative action is civil, not criminal, in nature, Tahiti Bar, Inc. Liquor License Case, supra; Commonwealth v. Funk, supra; Bayer Liquor License Case, supra, designed only for the protection of the public interest through exercise of the police power, e. g., Tahiti Bar, Inc. Liquor License Case, supra, in which the burden of proof is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in criminal prosecutions, but only proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Funk, supra; Petty Liquor License Case, supra; Summitt Hill Road and Gun Club Liquor Case, 184 Pa.Super. 584, 135 A.2d 781 (1957).
Thus, the Liquor Control Board may impose sanctions against license holders where the underlying conduct does not produce any criminal charges, Matter of Marge & Jack, Inc., supra; In re Quaker City Development Company, supra, or where criminal charges based on the same conduct have not resulted in conviction. Commonwealth v. McMenamin, 122 Pa.Super. 91, 184 A. 679 (1936); Commonwealth v. Rubinstein, 122 Pa.Super. 101, 184 A. 687 (1936); Las Vegas Supper Club, Inc. Liquor License Case, 211 Pa.Super. 385, 237 A.2d 252 (1967); Greenspan Liquor License Case, 213 Pa.Super. 29, 246 A.2d 433 (1968) (gambling) (dictum), vacated on other grounds, 438 Pa. 129, 264 A.2d 690 (1970). Appellant argues that these sanctions amount to exercise by [327]*327the Board of the judicial function of adjudicating criminal charges. To the contrary, the Board has not made any finding of criminal guilt or attempted to impose punishment under the Crimes Code, 18 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 101 et seq. (1972). Rather, pursuant to statute, it has imposed a civil sanction for conduct reasonably related to its sphere of authority. We therefore hold that the Board may fine appellant for gambling occurring on the licensed premises even though criminal charges based on the same conduct have been dismissed by the Municipal Court.
Order affirmed.
MANDERINO, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which POMEROY, J., joined.
PACKEL, J., did not participate in the decision of this case.
We hear this appeal pursuant to the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, art. II, § 204(a), 17 P.S. § 211.204(a) (Supp.1977). The appeal was argued on November 17, 1977 and reassigned to this writer on April 26, 1978.