Opinion ID: 409585
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appropriateness of Penalty

Text: 9 Having sustained the finding that Moffer violated Section 68's prohibition against trading with Indians, this court's further role in assessing the appropriateness of the decision to dismiss is quite limited. Unless the penalty is so clearly excessive as to constitute an abuse of the agency's discretion, Gipson v. Veterans Administration, 682 F.2d 1004, 1011 (D.C.Cir.1982), the Agency's judgment must be upheld. See also Jolly v. Listerman, 672 F.2d 935, 943 (D.C.Cir.1982). The decision of the MSPB to uphold Moffer's removal survives this limited inquiry. Moffer violated a clear statutory ban on trade encompassing the purchase of property from an Indian. The Agency had a legitimate interest in seeking to preserve its credibility and reputation for impartiality by removing an official whose conduct was directly contrary to the public trust he was charged with protecting. See Yacovone v. Bolger, 645 F.2d 1028, 1032 (D.C.Cir.) (removal of postmaster warranted when he committed serious breach of conduct that had significant effect on his reputation for honesty and integrity), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 844, 102 S.Ct. 159, 70 L.Ed.2d 130 (1981). 11 The MSPB could therefore reasonably conclude that petitioner's dismissal would promote the efficiency of the service. 12 See 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) (Supp. IV 1980); Doe v. Hampton, 566 F.2d 265, 272 (D.C.Cir.1977). Finally, the MSPB did indicate that it had considered all the relevant circumstances of this case-including the seriousness of the offense, the penalty specified in Section 68 itself, 13 and any mitigating factors 14 -before concluding that the removal penalty had been properly imposed by the Agency. See Final Board Decision, slip op. at 7-8, JA at 24-25. As we cannot find that petitioner's removal was so clearly unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of discretion, we defer to the judgment of the Agency, as approved by the MSPB, that Moffer should be removed from his position based upon his violation of 25 U.S.C. § 68 (1976). 15