73 Pa. Commw. 421 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1983
Opinion by
This is an appeal from an opinion and order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County affirming a decision of the Personnel Board of the Municipality of Penn Hills (Board) which sustained the dis
On July 22, 1981, Appellant was dismissed from the Penn Hills police force for engaging in conduct unbecoming a police officer,
Our scope of review in the present case is governed by the provisions of Section 754 of the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §754, and “[w]e must affirm the adjudication below unless constitutional rights have been violated, non-compliance with the provisions of the Local Agency Law has occurred in the proceeding before the [Board], an error of law
Here, Appellant alleges that the Board “abused its discretion” by finding that he had assaulted Cowell since the evidence presented against him at the hearing was contradictory. Specifically, Appellant alleges that the testimony of officers William P. Klobucher and William Markel should not have been believed since Officer Klobucher testified that he saw Appellant kick Cowell in the face, while Officer Markel testified that he saw Appellant knee Cowell in the abdominal area. Even a cursory review of the record, however, reveals that the testimony of these officers was not contradictory but instead was complementary since they were observing Appellant’s handling of Cowell at different times. We believe this testimony clearly constituted substantial evidence in support of the Board’s finding that Appellant both kicked and kneed Cowell.
Finally, Appellant alleges that the penalty imposed, his dismissal from employment, was too severe for the offense alleged, a physical assault of a handcuffed person. Suffice it to say that we do not believe that the Commission abused its discretion in affirming Appellant’s dismissal in light of the serious nature of Appellant’s misconduct.
Order
Now, April 14, 1983, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dated May 25, 1981, dismissing the appeal of Ronald Herrington from the decision of the Personnel Board of the Municipality of Penn Hills, is affirmed.
Our Supreme Court defined unbecoming conduct in Zeber Appeal, 398 Pa. 35, 156 A.2d 821 (1959), as follows:
Unbecoming conduct on the part of a municipal employee, especially a policeman or fireman, is any conduct which adversely affects the morale or efficiency of the bureau to which he is assigned. It, is indispensable to good government that a certain amount of discipline be maintained in the public service. Unbecoming conduct is also any conduct which has a tendency to destroy public respect for municipal employees and confidence in, the operation of municipal services.
Id. at 43, 156 A.2d at 825; Tomkiel v. Tredyffrin, Township Board of Supervisors, 64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 418, 440 A.2d 690 (1982).
Section 644 oí the Code provides, inter alia, that
[n]o person employed in any police or fire force of any township shall be suspended, removed or reduced in rank except for the following reasons:
(4) inefficiency, neglect, intemperance, disobedience of orders, or conduct unbecoming an officer. . . .
Article XV, Section 5(a)(4) of the Home Rule Charter of Penn Hills provides in pertinent part as follows:
a. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, no person in the Municipal Career Service shall be suspended, removed, demoted or reduced in rank, except for the following reasons:
*423 (4) inefficiency, neglect, intemperance, immorality, insubordination, wilful disobedience of orders, conduct unbecoming an employee, or conduct reflecting discredit upon, the Municipality and its government.