Title: State Civil Service Commission v. Conklin
Citation: 335 P.2d 537
Docket Number: 18146
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: February 16, 1959

335 P.2d 537 (1959) STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION of the State of Colorado et al., Plaintiff in Error, v. Norton C. CONKLIN, Defendant in Error. No. 18146. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. February 16, 1959. Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Dep. Atty. Gen., Patricia H. Maloy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error. Max P. Zall, Ronald I. Zall, Denver, for defendant in error. HALL, Justice. Herein we refer to plaintiff in error as the Commission, to defendant in error as Conklin, the Board of Commissioners of the Soldiers and Sailors Home as the Board, and to the Soldiers and Sailors Home as the Home. For a period of about two and one half years prior to May 2, 1956, Conklin had served as commandant of the Home, he was in the classified civil service of the state of Colorado, held his position pursuant to and was subject to removal as provided by Article XII, Section 13, of the Constitution of Colorado. On May 2, 1956, the Board filed with the Commission its written request that it immediately suspend Conklin as commandant of the Home, and, on hearing, that Conklin be discharged from the classified service and from his position as commandant. Reasons set forth as grounds for such requested actions were: The request for immediate suspension was denied, hearing date set, and copy of the charges and notice of hearing served on Conklin, who answered, denying the charges. A hearing was had, at which hearing fourteen witnesses testified at the request of the Board and eight at the request of Conklin. The hearing was completed June 7, 1956, and on July 23, 1956, the Commission entered its Findings and Order as follows: Conklin sought review of this order in the district court by proceedings under Rule 106(a) (4), Rules of Civil Procedure Colo. The trial court entered judgment vacating the order of removal and the Commission is here by writ of error seeking reversal of the judgment and reinstatement of the order of removal. Analysis of the above findings indicates the Commission determined that at the Home: The Commission made no specific findings with reference to any of the seven charges preferred against Conklin. There was much conflict in the testimony at the hearing with reference to the charges, and only the Commission, trier of the facts, is vested with authority to determine the facts. The Commission's order of removal is in no way predicated on any of the charges against which Conklin was required to answer and defend, but is based entirely on findings of loss of confidence between the Board and Conklin, lack of tact, diplomacy and self-control to meet the "situation" (loss of confidence), has irritated members of the Board and aggravated an unfortunate situation. Conklin was never charged with these matters and had he been so charged they do not constitute sufficient grounds for his removal. To summarize, Conklin was charged with acts and omissions which, if proven, generally would warrant his removal. He has never been found guilty of any of these charges, so cannot be removed on account thereof. Conklin was never charged with lack of tact, diplomacy, etc. and was never tried therefor, though found guilty thereof. Findings on matters not within the purview of the charges cannot be the basis for removal; doubly so *540 when the facts found do not constitute sufficient grounds for removal. It was improper for the Commission to try Conklin on matters other than those charged, and against which he was required to defend; it was improper to find him guilty of shortcomings of which he was not charged and it was improper to remove him for reasons that were not valid legal grounds for removal. Such order of removal cannot be sustained. The judgment is affirmed. DOYLE, Justice (dissenting). I disagree with the opinion of the majority that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed. I would reverse the judgment of the district court insofar as it operated to void the proceedings before the Commission. The judgment of the district court operated to "vacate" the order of the commission. In the course of his ruling, the judge gave reasons for vacating: It is to be noted that the case was not remanded for a new trial or for the entry of appropriate findings. The findings were ordered vacated. The mandate of this Court is a simple affirmance of the action of the district court and the net effect is approval of reinstatement of defendant in errorplaintiffwhich was ordered by the district court. What is the basis for the action of the majority? The opinion discloses that the findings and conclusions are not responsive to the charges and the evidence. The Court does not hold that the charges are insufficient in law or that the evidence at the hearing was insufficient to support the charges. It holds that the findings are inadequate. Thus the deficiency is a mere procedural one. Having condemned the findings of the Commission, the case should have been remanded to the district court with instructions to that court to remand the cause to the Civil Service Commission with orders to determine specifically whether the evidence supported the charges, and to enter definite, particular and concrete findings relative to each charge. Or in the alternative the mandate could have directed a new trial or other proceedings consistent with the views expressed. The applicable Constitutional and statutory provision does not contemplate the procedure followed herein. Art. XII, Sec. 13 provides for dismissals, and requires only that there shall be written charges and a hearing. It declares: "Persons in the classified service shall hold their respective positions during efficient service and shall be graded and compensated according to standards of efficient service which shall be the same for all persons having like duties. They shall be removed or disciplined only upon written charges, which may be filed by the head of a department or by any citizen of the state, for failure to comply with such standards, or for the good of the service, to be finally and promptly determined by the commission upon inquiry and after an opportunity to be heard. No persons shall be discharged for a political or a religious reason. The statutory provision, C.R.S.1953, 26-1-4 is in the same language. The grounds for dismissal are declared to be inefficiency or "for the good of the service". Unquestionably good practice requires written findings, responsive to the charges and the evidence, unequivocally determining whether inefficiency or discharge for the good of the service have been made out. 146 A.L.R. 209. The instant findings fail to do this, and the trial court was justified in ordering that the findings be set aside. But in the absence of a legislative mandate that the charges be voided the appropriate procedure was to send the case back with instructions to correct the administrative mistake, and to supply the omission. The general rule set forth in 42 Am. Jur. 689, Public Administrative Law, Sec. 248 calls for remand in circumstances like those at bar. In a recent decision, Board of Commissioners, etc. v. Salardino, 136 Colo. 421, 318 P.2d 596, 598, we held that the record was inadequate and ordered that the case be remanded: "The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the trial court to remand the matter to the Board of County Commissioners of Fremont County for hearing on the plaintiff's application and the taking and recording of all testimony, exhibits, and other evidence in support of the application, *542 together with all testimony, exhibits, and evidence in opposition to the application; for the making of specific findings of fact as the basis of an order granting or denying the license applied for." If the majority had ruled the evidence to be insufficient to support the charges, or had agreed with the district court that the defendant in error was deprived of due process, the present mandate would be justified. In State Civil Service Commission v. Hoag, 88 Colo. 169, 293 P. 338, 340, this Court upheld a judgment of the district court which judgment voided the order of the Civil Service Commission because the evidence was wholly insufficient to support the charges. Our language in that case shows the contrast between an "insufficiency" case which was there presented and an "administrative nicety" case such as the instant one. We there said: Our more recent decision in State Civil Service Commission v. Hazlett, 119 Colo. 173, 201 P.2d 616, 618, also recognized that this Court has a limited power to review the proceedings before the Civil Service Commission. We there said: It follows then that judicial review is here limited to a determination of the sufficiency of the charges, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the charges. If it is concluded that the charges are insufficient in law or that the evidence is legally insufficient, the defect is fatal, and a judgment voiding the proceeding is justified. If, however, it is concluded that the charges and evidence are sufficient but that the findings do not spell out "inefficiency" or "discharge *543 for the good of the service", the obvious remedy is repair of the findings so as to conform to the charges and the evidence, or in the alternative, a new trial. To my mind, the "repair" order would have been appropriate. SUTTON, J., has authorized me to say that he joins in the views which are expressed herein.