Evening star., 1953-11-28
Court Challenges
Inefficiency Firing
Without Warninq
By Joseph B. Byrnes

The U. S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, in
an unprecedented decision, yes
terday challenged the Govern
ment'S right to fire for ineffici-
ency without first giving a 90
day warning notice, as required
by law.
The central figure in the case.
termed by the court as of major
Importance" to civil service law,
is William E. Ward, 40, of 1925
M street NV.
Mr.. Ward organized the Cherry
Point IN. c. Marine Air Base
personnel Office in April, 1912,
and served as personnel officer
there until his discharge in June,
1851. At the time he was earn
ing $4,000 year in Grade II.
His attorney, Marcus Bor-
chardt. argued that Mr.. Ward
was removed under section 652
(a) Of the United States Code
"for such cause as will promote
the efficiency of the service"
Satisfactory Rating.
He said the dismissal notice
stated: Reason for removal:
Unsatisfactory Service"
His efficiency rating, however,
bore the notation: Performance
Rating; Satisfactory"
The attorney also contended
no consideration was given Sec
ton zoos of the same code. 1t
provides that no person shall
be discharged for unsatisfactory
service without a 90-day prior
warning and reasonable OPP
portunity to demonstrate satis-
factory performance.
At administrative proceedings
before the Navy Department, the
90-day warning period required
in Section zoos was not raised
either by the Government or by
Mr.. Wards father, since de-
ceased, who represented him.
1t was not injected into the
case until Mr.. Ward sought his
reinstatement in the U. S. Dis
trict Court for the District OF
Columbia. 1t was brought up
by MI Borchardt.
District Judge James w. Nor
ris ruled against Mr.. Ward, and
he appealed.
No Objection Originally.
No Government objection was
made when the provisions of
Section zoos were presented be-
fore Judge Morris. However, the
Government objected strenuous
! ly on the issue in the appellate
court.
In their opinion, Judges Ben
nett Champ Clark and David
Bazelon said:
THE issue raised for the first
time in the District Court in
wolves substantial question Of
demonstration of a statute
which appears to require dis
ciplining officials to follow cer-
tain specific procedural direc-
tions.
If appellee Navy has acted
illegally by ignoring these statu-
tory directions to him, our fall
ure to decide the issue might
result in serious injustice to ap-
pellant WARD.
Although we believe the issue
must be resolved, we think it
inadvisable to do SO in this case
without the benefit of a prior
ruling by the administrative
agency Navy involved.
THE issue is of major impor-
tance in the administration of
civil service laws. Yet it has
never, to our knowledge, been
considered in this or any other
case by the administrative
agency.
In such circumstances. to
decide it now would be unwise
for the court. and unfair not
only to the present parties but
to those who would inevitably be
affected by the outcome"
The court reversed the judg-
ment against Mr.. Ward. 1t also
ordered the lower court to re-
mand the case with instructions
to give the former personnel
officer hearing at which pro-
visions of Section zoos would be
thoroughly thrashed out.