Court Opinion

ID: 9634391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:09:56.380396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:01.593397
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
The issue presented by this appeal is not whether the Appellee should be held accountable for acts of misconduct; rather, it is whether the Governor should have been apprised of all of the pertinent facts relating to the criminal charges prior to his determination to convene a court martial board. Although the disposition of criminal charges is not relevant to whether the Appellee may be subject to *24sanctions imposed in a civil or administrative proceeding, it is relevant to the Governor’s determination whether a court martial proceeding is warranted.
As noted in the majority opinion, the rule which states that a defendant’s acquittal from a criminal offense does not bar prosecution of a civil action is designed to protect the public interest. The public interest is not protected, however, by an uninformed exercise of police power. Knowledge of the dismissal of the criminal charges would be necessary for an informed exercise of the Governor’s power under the Administrative Code. The memorandum which was prepared by the Commissioner and forwarded to the Governor was the sole basis of the Governor’s approval. Therefore, it was imperative that the Governor be advised of all material facts' relevant to the charges where, as here, the dismissal occurred prior to the Governor’s recommendation.
I would therefore affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court.
LARSEN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.