Opinion ID: 1353141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The validity of the penalty of 20 days suspension.

Text: Appellant contends that no substantial evidence supports the punitive action against her, and that consequently, it was an abuse of the trial court's discretion to refuse to review the penalty imposed. She cites Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [90 Cal. Rptr. 355, 475 P.2d 451], and LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 1 Cal.3d 627, 638-639 [83 Cal. Rptr. 208, 463 P.2d 432], for the proposition that a finding by an administrative agency must be supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. We agree, but do not find this principle determinative of the case before us since the evidence before the hearing officer clearly supports the officer's findings as adopted by the board. It is immaterial that appellant did not intend to have a particular referee assigned to the case, and that she neither intended to nor did affect the fairness of the proceedings in Mrs. Shub's case. (3a) Her efforts on behalf of her friend amounted to an unwarranted interference with proceedings scheduled to be held before another judicial officer. Despite her honorable intentions, appellant thereby violated subdivision (t). Appellant also argues in a separate, but related point, that it was an abuse of the trial court's discretion not to review the propriety of the penalty originally assessed against her by the division since it was based upon several charges arising out of the same matter only one of which was sustained. Since the board expressly found her innocent of the other charges, the board assertedly had no basis for retaining the same penalty for the one remaining charge. (4) This argument is, however, addressed to the wrong forum, for it is well settled that in reviewing the penalty imposed by an administrative body, neither a trial court nor an appellate court is free to substitute its own discretion as to the matter. ( Macfarlane v. Dept. of Alcoholic Bev. Control, 51 Cal.2d 84, 91 [330 P.2d 769]; Brown v. Gordon, 240 Cal. App.2d 659, 667 [49 Cal. Rptr. 901].) Shepherd v. State Personnel Board, supra, 48 Cal.2d 41, is not to the contrary. In Shepherd, this court directed the superior court to enter judgment instructing the State Personnel Board to set aside its decision and to determine the penalty to be imposed in light of our opinion. The basis for this decision was not our disagreement with the penalty imposed by the board, but rather, our determination that the board imposed a penalty of dismissal based at least in part on conduct which was not proper cause for discipline. We did not presume to alter or annul the penalty itself, but merely remanded the case to the board for reconsideration in light of our opinion. [2] Nothing in the record before us suggests that the board improperly considered the charges of neglect of duty or immorality in sustaining the 20-day suspension for violation of subdivision (t). To the contrary, the hearing officer resolved all evidentiary conflicts in appellant's favor and found only a violation of subdivision (t). (3b) Nevertheless, here, both the hearing officer and the board agreed the 20-day suspension was fully warranted and should be sustained because of the impropriety of appellant's actions, the difficulty and embarrassment for the Assistant Referee in Charge, the Deputy Attorney General and the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board created by respondent's poor judgment, and the potentially destructive effect on the appearance of impartiality that appellant's actions could foster. Appellant further suggests that the hearing officer or board may have imposed the 20 days suspension in order to punish her for pursuing her legal remedies and defending herself. We have reviewed the record, however, and find nothing therein which would indicate that appellant was penalized for exercising her legal rights. We cannot say that as a matter of law a 20-day suspension is unduly severe under the circumstances in this case. [3]