Court Opinion

ID: 9641109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:23:21.145195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:35.101251
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Blatt:
I respectfully dissent. I believe that Kretzler v. Ohio Township, 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 236, 322 A.2d 157 (1974), can be distinguished from the present case because the suspension ordered here was not an adjudication within the context of the Local Agency Law,1 but was merely the exercise of a .disciplinary action on the part of the supervising authority. Section 4408 of The Third Class City Code2 (Code) provides for two distinct kinds of “suspension”: one, for a period of ten days or under, which can be invoked by the supervising authority without requiring a statement of charges and without entitling the employee to a hearing, and the other, for a period not exceeding thirty days for which a statement of charges must be filed and a hearing must be held. While the Code provides a right to a hearing in the second case, a suspension of ten days or less is clearly authorized without a right to an appeal.
In Kretzler, supra, the section of the Police Tenure Act affording a right to a written notice of charges *48for enumerated offenses did not parallel the language of the section providing a right to a hearing. Although the section providing for hearings omitted reference to reduction in rank, we found that the other section which required notice of charges and which placed limitations on the reasons justifying reduction in rank sufficiently afforded police officers a statutory right to their present rank. Moreover, we found it illogical to afford judicial review only with respect to suspensions and dismissals and not with respect to reductions in rank.
In the present case, however, the Code does not provide the statutory protections with regard to ten-day suspensions which the Act in Kretzler provided with regard to reductions in rank. And, because there appears to be no personal or property rights to employment during the ten-day suspension here, this suspension was not an “adjudication” as defined by the Local Agency Law. I would, therefore, affirm the lower court’s refusal to order a hearing.

 Act of December 2, 1968, P.D. 1133, as amended, 53 P.S. §11301 et seq.

 Act of June 23, 1931, P.D. 932, as amended, 53 P.S. §39408.