IN THE MATTER OF GARY VICTOR, MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY(CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION), A-2145-15T2

Gary Victor, a Mercer County correctional sergeant and R&D supervisor, discharged an inmate on January 24, 2011 who should have been turned over to Plainsboro Police.
Discharge paperwork contained printed instruction "Turned over to Plainsboro Township" and a handwritten notation "No ride, Annex"; Victor admitted writing the handwritten note.
The inmate was left on the street for about ten minutes, ran when officers tried to retake him, and was recaptured with Trenton Police assistance.
Mercer County issued a preliminary and then a final disciplinary notice imposing a ten-day working suspension for conduct unbecoming, neglect of duty, and violation of SOP 210 (other sufficient cause).
Administrative Law Judge found the County proved the charges (except one subsection) and upheld the ten-day suspension; the Civil Service Commission adopted the ALJ decision.
On appeal, Victor argued the County failed to meet its burden and he reasonably relied on the paperwork; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Victor's Argument	Mercer County/Civil Service Argument	Held
Whether County proved conduct unbecoming (N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6))	Victor acted in good faith relying on discharge paperwork	Victor admitted he wrote the "No ride, Annex" note; other testimony undermined his credibility	Affirmed: sufficient evidence supported conduct unbecoming finding
Whether County proved neglect of duty (N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(7))	Errors in paperwork by others misled him; he exercised due diligence	As R&D sergeant, Victor had duty to ensure proper turnover to Plainsboro PD	Affirmed: record supports neglect of duty finding
Whether County proved violation of SOP 210 / other sufficient cause (N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(12))	Paperwork may have been altered after initial review; he was misled	Victor was responsible as R&D Sergeant under SOP 210 to coordinate records and discharges	Affirmed: SOP violation proved; Victor failed to meet job responsibilities
Whether ten-day suspension was disproportionate	Discipline was excessive given capture without incident and his record	Public safety and progressive discipline permit up to removal for serious infractions; suspension fits circumstances	Affirmed: ten-day suspension not so disproportionate as to be shocking

Ramirez v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18 (App. Div.) (standard for appellate review of agency decisions)
Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, 109 N.J. 575 (1998) (deference to agency factfinding where supported by substantial credible evidence)
Carter, In re, 191 N.J. 474 (2007) (progressive discipline and public-safety considerations in disciplining officers)
Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500 (1992) (courts should not substitute their judgment for agency where supported by evidence)
In re Polk License Revocation, 90 N.J. 550 (1982) (discipline review asks whether penalty is shocking to sense of fairness)
In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136 (App. Div.) (definition of conduct unbecoming public employee)
Karins v. City of Atl. City, 152 N.J. 532 (1998) (conduct unbecoming may offend accepted standards of decency)