delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff, Tess L. Hacker, brought a common law certiorari proceeding against the members of the Illinois State Civil Service Commission to review their decision discharging her from her civil service position as chief switchboard operator of the State of Illinois Building in Chicago. The trial court entered judgment for defendants, sustaining their order removing plaintiff, and dismissed her complaint. Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff began her employment as a switchboard operator for the State Department of Finance on May 1, 1941 and was certified and appointed as chief operator on November 1, 1941. She continued to occupy that and successive supervisory positions until April 22, 1958, when she was notified that her services were terminated. Her duties as chief switchboard operator placed her in charge of a seven-position board at the State of Illinois Building at 160 North LaSalle Street, Chicago. The charges filed against her were as follows:
“The character of this employee’s work has been deteriorating. Employee has been below par physically which required absence from work and several checkups in the hospital. Employee has appeared to be emotionally disturbed, has been unable to get along with other employees and to a marked degree has lost the ability to direct the activities of the switchboard room, and the employees thereof, thereby creating more than an average turnover and giving the switchboard room the reputation of being an undesirable place to work.”
On April 28, 1958 the members of the Civil Service Commission received plaintiff’s request for a hearing which was accordingly set for May 22, 1958. A motion to quash the charges or, in the alternative, to furnish a bill of particulars was filed on behalf of plaintiff. The commission members thereupon ordered the Department of Finance to file a bill of particulars, and in compliance with this order a bill was filed specifying numerous complaints subscribed to by switchboard operators under plaintiff’s supervision, the manager of the building, and others. At a hearing scheduled for June 26, 1958, plaintiff’s attorney moved to quash certain parts of the bill of particulars for the reason that the charges were vague or stale and did not set forth any facts constituting cause for removal. This motion was not ruled upon, and the case proceeded to hearing. After the taking of some testimony, the hearing was continued to July 3, 1958, and then to August 14, 1958, when it was concluded.
On November 19, 1958 the commission members issued their findings and decision approving the recommendation of the hearing officer that the plaintiff be discharged. On January 27, 1959 plaintiff filed her complaint in the Circuit Court for common law certiorari, and on November 16, 1959 the trial judge reversed the decision of the commission members on the ground that it contained insufficient findings of fact, and remanded the cause to the commission members for making findings of fact with reference to the evidence introduced at the hearing on the charges filed against plaintiff. Thereafter, no action being taken by defendants, plaintiff on January 15, 1960 made a demand for reinstatement and payment for back salary. Five days later, plaintiff’s attorney received a copy of the findings and decision of the commission members ordering plaintiff discharged. Plaintiff then filed a petition to redocket the case, and an order was entered accordingly requiring defendants to file a supplemental record within twenty days. This supplemental record was filed March 1, 1960, the cause was set for an early hearing on motion by the plaintiff, and on May 20, 1960 the court entered the judgment order appealed from.
It will be noted that this case was instituted as a common law proceeding for certiorari. On July 21, 1959 the Personnel Code Act (Ill Rev Stats 1959, c 127, §§ 63b.101-63b.118) was amended to provide (§ 63b.111a) that all final administrative decisions of the Civil Service Commission thereunder should be subject to judicial review pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Review Act (Ill Rev Stats 1959, c 110, §§ 264-279). Plaintiff contends that the Personnel Code amendment is not applicable to this proceeding because she instituted her suit on January 27, 1959, before the amendment was adopted.
There is a comprehensive discussion of the doctrine of retroactive and prospective application of various types of statutory modification in Orlicki v. McCarthy, 4 Ill2d 342,
“In addition to this broad exemption in section 4 of the act in relation to construction of statutes, commonly referred to as the Saving Statute, courts have also excepted amendments relating to matters of procedure, and have held that where the change in law merely affects the remedy, or the law of procedure, all rights of action will be enforcible under the new procedure without regard to whether they accrued before or after such change of law, and without regard to whether suit has been instituted or not, unless there is a saving clause as to existing legislation. [Citing cases.]”
The law applicable in this State, said the Supreme Court in Ogdon v. Gianakos, 415 Ill 591, 597,
“is that there is no vested right in any particular remedy or method of procedure, and that, while generally statutes will not be construed to give them a retroactive operation unless it clearly appears that such was the legislative intent, nevertheless, when a change of law merely affects the remedy or law of procedure, all rights of action will be enforceable under the new procedure without regard to whether they accrued before or after such change of law and without regard to whether the suit has been instituted or not, unless there is a saving clause as to existing litigation. [Citing cases.] . . . .”
In Duna v. Nat’l Bank, 28 Ill App2d 500,
“It has frequently been held that where a change of law affects merely the remedy or law of procedure, all rights of action will be enforceable under the new procedure without regard to whether they accrued before or after the change, unless there is a saving clause as to the existing legislation,”
citing and quoting from the Ogdon case, and also relying on Connett v. City of Jerseyville, 96 F2d 392 (7th Cir 1938), McKinley v. McIntyre, 360 Ill 382,
In reliance on People v. Fisher, 373 Ill 228,
“ ‘ “The purpose of a common law writ of certiorari is to bring the entire record of an inferior tribunal before the court to determine whether such a tribunal has proceeded according to law, and the trial is to be had solely from an inspection of the record. The court cannot consider any matter not appearing of record, and if the want of jurisdiction or illegality appears from the record the proper judgment is that the proceeding be quashed, but if the proceeding be regular the petition must be dismissed and the writ quashed, and these are the only judgments that can be entered in this procedure.” (Sanner v. Union Drainage District, 175 Ill 575.) ....’”
The Fisher case involved statutory certiorari, and there the court held that where no provision was included in the applicable statute in regard to the authority of the reviewing court to enter orders, it was confined and limited to the authority springing from the common law. The writ of mandamus was ordered to issue, compelling the trial judge to expunge the invalid order and enter an order consistent with the views expressed by the court.
If the judgment order of November 16, 1959 of the trial court in the instant proceeding was absolutely void insofar as it remanded this cause to the commission, then to the extent that that order in effect quashed the Civil Service Commission record it was nevertheless final on the day it was entered, and plaintiff accordingly should have appealed from that order in compliance with the statutory provisions relating to appellate practice (Ill Rev Stats 1959, c 110, § 76). Plaintiff’s appeal of record is from the order of May 20, 1960 which sustained the commission members’ order removing plaintiff; she cannot prosecute a collateral appeal from the prior order of November 16, 1959 which remanded the cause to the commission for making findings of fact.
As her principal ground for reversal, plaintiff contends that the record fails to show cause for removal, and that the conclusion of the commission was unsupported by competent evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The charges filed against plaintiff stated that the character of her work had been deteriorating; that she was below par physically and was absent from work for hospital checkups and recuperation at home; that she appeared to be emotionally disturbed, had been unable to get along with other employees, and to a marked degree had lost the ability to direct the activities of the switchboard room and the employees thereof, thereby creating more than an average turnover and giving the switchboard room the reputation of being an undesirable place to work.
The hill of particulars stated that in November 1949 George W. Mitchell, then director of finance, requested C. H. Sudler, Jr., manager of the State of Illinois Building, to interview its telephone operators to obtain their opinion as to working conditions in the switchboard room, thus indicating that deterioration of plaintiff’s work began in November 1949. In an interview the assistant chief operator complained that plaintiff by-passed her as an assistant and relied instead on another operator, a Mrs. McCormac, for relief; that plaintiff was very strict with the operators, aside from Mrs. McCormac; and that the operators were very unhappy under plaintiff’s supervision. Other operators interviewed — most of them with experience and some of them with backgrounds of Federal government, brokerage, and hospital switchboards — characterized plaintiff as disturbed, maladjusted, and irritable; they felt that she “played favorites”; stated that she corrected the girls in public, “yelled” and “hollered” at them, and “banged” furniture; described the atmosphere of the switchboard room as resembling that of a house of correction or a military post; and complained that most of the operators were “in a nervous state.”
With reference to improper performance of duty, the bill of particulars stated that in 1957 the governor’s office received a complaint from a radio announcer that he had been offended by discourteous treatment received from the operators. Plaintiff admitted that she had become a trifle irritated at the time but stated that her irritation was justified; later, however, she wrote a short note of apology to the radio announcer in question. In March of 1956 plaintiff became involved in an argument with one of the operators to whom she refused to grant a maternity leave to which the operator was entitled. Mr. Leth, the assistant to the director of finance, had to he called to find a way out of the predicament.
George B. Van Vleck, manager of the State of Illinois Building, stated that from December 1, 1954 to December 13, 1957 plaintiff was not a well person and had to take leaves of absence due to illness; that her external nervousness and tension prevented her from being an effective supervisor; and that the unusual personnel turnover was caused by plaintiff’s emotional instability. Eldridge Hitt, vice president of Arthur Rubloff and Company, which managed the building, stated that after several talks with plaintiff he had the impression that she was quite nervous and easily upset emotionally; he added that the switchboard room was habitually short of telephone operators, and that the employees did not seem to want to remain in plaintiff’s department.
In essence, plaintiff really bases her case upon the premise that discharge of a civil service employee is not authorized “except for cause,” adopting the definition of that term given in Murphy v. Houston, 250 Ill App 385, 394 (1928): “some substantial shortcoming which renders continuance in his office or employment in some way detrimental to the discipline and efficiency of the service and something which the law and a sound public opinion recognize as a good cause for his not longer occupying the place.” After a careful reading of the testimony we are convinced that plaintiff was discharged, not for any political or capricious reasons, but for proved incompetency.
In Logan v. Civil Service Commission, 3 Ill2d 81,
“the findings of the administrative agency on questions of fact are prima facie correct, (Ill Rev Stat 1953, chap 110, par 274), however, they may be reviewed to determine whether they are supported by the evidence, and may be set aside only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Drezner v. Civil Service Com. 398 Ill 219; Secaur v. Civil Service Com. 408 Ill 197; Harrison v. Civil Service Com. 1 Ill2d 137.) Therefore, in determining the propriety of the order of the circuit court it is incumbent upon this court to ascertain whether the findings of the commission were manifestly against the weight of the evidence . . .
The purpose of the Civil Service Act is to ensure a competent civil service for governmental bodies, and in furtherance of that end employees are assured of tenure in their positions provided they meet certain qualifications. They cannot legally be discharged for political or capricious reasons, but neither can they claim the right to be continued in their positions if they are incompetent.
We think that the case here under consideration was one for the informed discretion of the experienced members of the Civil Service Commission, and upon the record presented we would not be justified in holding that their judgment was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence or reflected improper motivation.
Various other grounds are urged for reversal, but in the view we take we do not consider it necessary to pass upon them.
Accordingly, we hold that the judgment order appealed from is correct, and it is therefore affirmed.
Judgment order affirmed.