Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-04-12

The decision of the three CT
fore reversed their Appeals Exam
Ipeals and Review on the pro-
cedure of the firing. but upheld
their agencies in ruling that Mr..
Jones was illegally suspended for
los days.
None of the three decisions
made by the Civil Service Com
mission and its agencies went
into the merits of the firing. The
Civil Service Commissioners sent
the case back to the Appeals
Examining Office to consider
whether Mr.. Jones should have
been fired for drunkenness in the
first place.
Year-LOng Case
Today's decision was the latest
development in the year-long
case of the first District police
man to inkove the Veterans
Preference Act to fight his dis
Imissal.
The precedent-shatterin case
prompted the introduction of a
House bill to put veterans in
the same status with nonvet-
Grams on disciplinary matters.
1t also prompted Police Chief
Robert V. Murray to ask for a
court test of the whole question.
The Jones case was carried by
the District Commissioners to
the civil service commissioners
in a last-ditch effort to uphold
the firing of the policeman, avoid
having TO reinstate him and also
avoid having TO pay him during
his suspension.
The csc Ruling
This is what the Civil Service
Commission itself ruled today:
/. The District Commissioners
were procedurally correct in the
removal of Mr.. Jones. This re-
versed the commissions Board
Of Appeals and Review, which
had held the removal proceed
urally defective" and had recon-
mended that Pvt. Jones be re-
stored to duty,
!, 2. The suspension of Mr.. Jones
!. without advance notice for q
period Of los days was proCedur
ally defective and violated the
Veterans Preference Act as Tho
/ appeals board had ruled. This
, affirmed the appeal boards rec
: concentration that the Distric
: Government be required II
amend its records to show Mr.
, Jones in an active duty statu,
81. during the period of unlawful
, suspension. The commission die
not specifically tell the Distric
5 to give Mr.. Jones his back pay
S A commission spokesman sale
t the commission has no authority
: over that and it was matter
: for the controller general to de.
, eide.
3. The Jones case was sent
back TO where it started in The
commission--the Appeals Exam
: lining Office. for consideration
finding and action o nthe merit,
Of the removal action"
Only Procedure Considered
A commission spokesman sale
that up to this time the case
/ has been considered only on q
: procedural basis and not on the
; merits He explained that when
: veterans case comes to the
: Appeals Examining Office. it is
. first considered on the procedures
involved in the suspension OF
: finding. If the procedures are
correct, he said. then the merits
are considered.
The same method, he said, is
followed by the appeals board
and by the Civil Service Com
miSsioners themselves. There
fore, he said. whether Pvt. Jones
S should have been fired fol-
: drunkenness has never come
S into the picture as far as the
various agencies Of the Civil
} Service Commission are con.
cerned.
Not on Police Rolls
The policeman is not now or
). police rolls.
Mr.. Jones was suspended
/ March 2, 1855. on charges OF
/ malingering, failing to report
: to the police surgeon at the
: Clinic while on sick leave, will
r fully making untruthful state
ments to police officer anc
being under the influence OF
alcohol while off duty.
; When Pvt. Jones appeared be-
) fore trial board on March Is
the board found him not guilty
: OF malingering but guilty of the
other charges and recommended
, probation. This was rejected by
! the Commissioners as an illegal
sentence.
On March % Mr.. Jones was
) arrested twice and charged each
! time with being drunk. He was
released after posting $40 coll
Lat aaNa