76 Pa. Commw. 426 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1983
Opinion by
Mrs. Geissler’s (Appellant) employment as financial director for the Township of Upper Dublin (Township)
It appears from the record made before the Board that Appellant executed a purchase order
At the hearing before the Board, Appellant testified that she was aware of the statutory limit for no-bid contracts and that there was no bidding for the
The Board found, inter alia, that the transactions were in violation of the law, that Appellant knew they were in violation of the law and that this constituted just cause for her dismissal.
In this appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it refused to grant her a de novo hearing, that she was denied her right to a hearing before a fair and impartial tribunal, that the Board’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence, that her termination was not for just cause and that her conduct was justified since she was following the instructions of her supervisor and the past practices of the Township.
It is true that Appellant’s appeal to the trial court requests a hearing, but there is nothing in the record before us to indicate that counsel pursued that request before oral argument or stated reasons why the request should be granted as set forth in his appeal to the trial court. Even though counsel’s failures in that respect may not constitute a waiver of the issue, we note the trial court is not obligated to conduct a de novo hearing unless a full and complete record of the proceedings was not made before the local agency. 2 Pa. C. S. §754. Appellant argues that the trial court’s refusal to grant a de novo hearing denies her the opportunity to show that the Board was biased.
Appellant insists that her conduct with respect to the furniture purchases was not just cause for her termination. The burden was upon the Township to prove just cause for Appellant’s dismissal. Soergel v. Board of Supervisors of Middlesex Township, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 311, 316 A.2d 89 (1974). The trial court concluded that that burden had been met in the instant case. We agree. When one in a position of trust knowingly violates the law, such conduct is grounds for dismissal.
Order affirmed.
Order
The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County dated May 5, 1982, is affirmed.
The Township of Upper Dublin is a first class township.
The proposal of the supplier exceeded $39,000.
The Township had computer run checks but Appellant said she issued hand-drawn checks to the supplier because the supplier had need of immediate payment.
The amount has now increased to $4,000.
public officers who have charge of public funds and public money are charged with the duty, as trustees, to disburse and expend the money for the purposes and in the manner prescribed by law. . . . Mere good faith in making an improper payment of public funds is not recognized as any excuse whatever. (Footnotes omitted.)
63 Am Jnr. 2d Public Officers and Employees §322 (1972).