*1 would issue, involving seem as will that that controverted questions of fact as such revocation to the cause or causes for together and as damages, any, thereby, to the if with caused question legal respondents, may as liability best advisable, action, be determined in an if on such deemed based alleged resulting damages, wrongful and asserted revocation charged equipped triable before court preliminary finding pertinent facts. is not our purpose to an action will lie under the indicate that such taking petitioner’s circumstances, assumed contention at thereon, expressing its value, face and without may matter be determined elsewhere. best conclusion, respond- we that the desire to state effect action, proper ents’ whether improper, not, urged, deprive petitioner of all He means pilot. of livelihood as a pursue calling is free to license that he procure appropriate from the federal authorities or power the several local boards or commissions vested with to issue such licenses. judgment proceeding numbered Sac.
affirmed. The alternative writ issued the proceeding num- discharged peremptory F. 16132 is bered S. and a writ denied. , Curtis, J., Langdon, J., Edmonds, J., Shenk, J., and Seawell, J., concurred.
Rehearing- denied. In Bank. January F. No. 16094.
[S. 1939.] NEUWALD, B. Respondent, EDWARD v. A. B. BROCK, Department as Director of the of Agriculture, etc., al., et Appellants. *3 Webb, Attorney-General, S. English
U. and Frank and John Dailey, Deputies Attorney-General, Appellants. J. for Cullinan, Cullinan,
Eustace Eustace Jr., and Herbert E. Wenig Respondent.
CURTIS, J. March 1, 1932, Petitioner on appointed was supervising investigator of position to the division of Department measures in the weights Agriculture of and of California, by the then state of director of depart- appointment under said position His ment. temporary at the time of his appointment reason that there was eligible persons of list appropriate for the grade class or belonged, or from which said which to State Civil certify could to Commission the director of the Service De- Agriculture, the names of and addresses of three partment or standing highest on persons eligible number list of grade to which of supervising or in- class vestigator belonged. weights the division of measures up petitioner’s discharge There the time of had not been to eligible by Commission such certified the Civil Service list Agriculture posi- Department for the said director of the petitioner Peti- appointment. tion held said date of tioner hold from the continued to said appointment January 26, director 1935, when the him from Department purported dismiss Agriculture by fil- position by notifying him of his his-said dismissal Commission ing a statement with the Civil Service written giving the reason for his dismissal. 1934, article general November
At the election held on adopted XXIV Constitution and added to the By petitioner new section state. Constitution appointee and as therein the status of a probationary term to commence on ef provided “such less months nor more fective date hereof of not than two assigned grade class as eight months in the than [the may fix”. commission] January 24, 1935, Director Brock petitioner dismissed
On communication in which stated as his a written reason petitioner’s capacity conduct dismissal that for such satisfactory had been him. Whereupon petitioner instituted purpose this action for the position, in such having himself reinstated re- salary purported date of his covery of his dismis- damages him sal, sustained and for of the al- Department illegal the Director of the action of leged dismissing position. him from The trial Agriculture in favor of the judg- found awarded court posi- the reinstatement his former ment salary recovery during of his period tion respondents appealed have from said his dismissal. In our discussion of case we shall judgment. continue parties hereto as and respondents refer to respectively. *4 by found that the reason court stated
The trial the direc- petitioner dismissal of agriculture of tor for dismissal of reason a civil sufficient valid or position State Act, Civil Service employee causes, grounds specified or reasons it was not one and (Stats. p. 1035, 14 the State Civil Service Act of section as amended, 1929, p. 252) Stats. person for which a position provisions may under the dismissed, be said act is not a reason for such or cause dismissal sufficient to satisfy requirements or section act of rule 9 said of the State Civil Service further Commission. The court found that the statement of the director of reason was his pretext untrue and was a to frustrate defeat the intent purpose recently XXIV of adopted article Constitution, prevent and to acquiring from XIV.) (Finding status. is contended be dismissed that he could from probationary position by his appointing officer or more one of the reasons enumerated in 14 of section act, as the found, said trial court or if he be dismissed could any reason, specified other Director Brock nevertheless insufficient; respondents that the while contend probationary position dismissal of is vided for and controlled of said given by Agriculture that the the Director for such complied dismissal was sufficient in that with rule said Civil Service Commission. 14 of material, Section said so far act as here reads as ‘‘The every person
follows: tenure holding a un- provisions der of this during good act shall be behavior, any person may removed, such demoted, suspended pay, without transferred to another in the same reprimanded, class, or restored with pay equitable procedure under a conformity with provisions which of this section shall be up set regulations, any its commission in rules and of the follow- inefficiency, ing Incompetency, insubordination, causes: dis- immorality, profanity, honesty, intemperance, discourteous public employees, improper politi- or other treatment disobedience, activity, wilful violation of the cal regulations this act or of the rules commission, good or behavior other failure or other act or incompatible public which are inimical to acts provides further charges The section written service.” against employee with the filed commission and must be who right copy served charge hearing have and to before the commis- answer commission The decision of final. sion. *5 appeal is presented this principal question on
Evidently the applies Act Service State Civil whether 14 of the said section only petitioner held person like who the time Act at the position Service under the State Civil Agriculture. It is obvious by Director of dismissal the ten- namely, “the section, general language found this provisions under position every person holding a ure of persons sufficiently include act”, broad to of this persons positions well as act. positions provisions of said under the 1035) (Stats. 1913, p. However, 9 of said act section act as special provisions of this “Subject that, vides positions that laborers, appointments made to all shall be reinstatement, or reduc- by transfer promotion, filled are not pursu- provisions the rules tion, this act and power: appointing by Said appointing thereof, ance filled, any vacancy be power notify shall the commission shall position. The commission stating the duties of the and addresses certify power names appointing then to the eligible persons highest list standing of the three on belongs; in case grade position but the class or to which the eligible list, there be less than on such three the commission certify thereon; appointing shall number power and the position by appointment shall fill the per- of one of the eligi- sons certified the commission therefor. The term of bility eligible shall fixed for each list at not less than one year. Appointments eligible shall be made from the list nearly appropriate filled, most to be list shall be created for a stated group new or a positions appropriate when there existing list person appointment from which be made. No shall be appropriate appointed under title not to the to be duties person performed, assigned and no shall to perform the than other legally duties that which he holds, except by consent of the commission. appointments All probationary period be for a shall be fixed the commis- to exceed six sion but not months. Unless such appointee within probationary period have been dismissed shall power, for reasons appointing stated writing appointment commission, per- with the shall filed become subject provisions of this act removals, as to manent changes. probationers Discharged suspensions may by vote unanimous of the commission be restored to the list of eligibles any position for certification to within their class they rejected.” other than one from which were probationer we seen, petitioner’s As have as a status provisions was not attained under section he adoption in” by “blanketed XXIV article pro Constitution. fact status as a attained his bationer virtue of rather Constitution than under the the State Civil Act did Service *6 provisions in manner affect the said act relative person proba holding to his dismissal or retention. aAs a tionary position, in power him so far as the to dismiss concerned, subject provisions he was act, no position. matter how he attained said said in express Section of makes reference act terms persons holding probationary positions act. to under said provides appointment, length This section for their service, assignment duties, their term of their their dismis sal, they per the conditions under which advanced to are fact, In positions. manent this section of act is devoted entirety probationary pe in its appointments almost to riods, no other to any section of the act extent deals directly employees. noted, pro this class of It will be person viding holding a a probationary dismissal of no position, whatever is made section reference 9 to requirement provision respect contained in section 14 employees. In ing fact, dismissal of no reference is made provide 14 of the act two section at all. The sections two independent entirely distinct methods for the dismissal employees. duty As rule it of civil a legislature an as a courts to construe act of whole and conflicting provisions harmony bring therein in with each reasonably other if sections can be so construed. suggested this connection it is construing these two sections, while we should hold that the appointive power has person authority discharge a holding a probationary provided by 9, section he can do so for enumerated section and after causes a trial before the To so provisions Commission. construe Civil Service entirely provisions the act would eliminate the dismissal act, governs if 9 of the section the method probationer by appointive dismissing then power, those authorizing of section such dismissal are of contrary to effect whatever. Such a construction would be act, effect construing well-established rule that given provisions. (23 should to each its and all of Cal. Jur., 133, p. 758.) see. question sec then of these two arises as to which govern
tions the act is to the manner or mode dismiss person ing holding probationary position the state civil service. Section 14 general provision the act if it be the meaning by respondent ap contended for plies every person act, under said while section 9 specially applies of said act per to the dismissal of a son probationary period. for a It must be conceded that there is a conflict direct between the terms sections, of the two power one authorizing appointive probationer by dismiss a merely notifying him of his dis by filing missal and with the commission a written statement of the reasons for such dismissal. No provided hearing is said section as to the truth of said reasons or as to sufficiency. their Under section 14 of written charges filed, must be limited to certain causes named in said hearing section. A is had before the commission these charges, and a decision is rendered the commission and *7 entered in its minutes. statutory It is a rule of construction that when general a special provision a inconsistent, are the latter para- is
mount the former general and controls provision. (Section 1859, Proc.) Code Civ. Undoubtedly section 9 of procedure the act contains a for the dismissal person of a probationary position under the Civil Act, Service provisions while the 14 section its terms, if construed literally, apply persons generally to all holding civil service According positions. to the rule of just construction re- to, it be held ferred must that in provisions so far as the provisions 14 are section inconsistent with the 9, section are, therefore, We opinion the latter control. of the that a person holding in the civil service of this state as subject probationer appointive is to dismissal power act, 9 provided as section of said and that the application of section of the act have no to the dismissal person holding position. such a We think only is legal may construction which be given to these two Act. sections of the State Civil Service Such a conclusion in harmony general is with the intent also purpose system. Applicants of the are first civil service appointed temporary They from a list. selected are tenure, usually exceeding designated six months and are as probationers, during they which are on trial time or bation whether they to determine are in fitted dis- fact charge they particular position the duties of the to which are assigned. they If in appointive power, fitted, summary provided are not so method for their is discharge. they discharging capable If are found to be efficiently during the respective positions duties of their they positions period, given permanent are then they charges discharged only formal which be after preferred against upon charges are them and a trial these provided by is had before the section 14 commission as place employees To said act. these two different classes posi- equality respective their as to the tenure of destroy principles tions fundamental would one system, presumed of the civil service and it is not to legislature without the clearest and intended to do so positive most indication of intention. applies probationers,
To hold that section of the act employees well as posi- as of the state tions, general quoted language its hereinbefore because sufficiently probationers, bring broad within to include would employees just its terms not two classes of men- tioned, temporary employees emergency even em- act, ployees. By term, subdivision "position” act, "positions” used includes all employment authority. officesand under state Section 11 of provides temporary appointments the act and section 12 emergency appointments. Appointees under either of employed these two sections the act are under state au- thority, holding positions and are therefore provi- under the petitioner’s if sions of said contention is to be sus- positions tained, the tenure of their protected by section 14 of the act to the same and in extent the same manner as *8 permanent employees those state full civil rights. Surely service it was not the intention put all these different employees parity classes of toas tenure respective positions. of their harmony
This .in conclusion is with decision of the recent (2d) Kennedy Board, this court in v. State Personnel Cal. (2d) 486], Kennedy attorney Pac. for the Board was [57 adoption of Dental Examiners at the time of the of article adoption XXIV of the Constitution in 1934. Prior to the amendment, exempt said his was from the state system. civil adoption system, service he Upon the was, case, like the proba- blanketed as a tioner. 15, 1935, posi- He dismissed on April from his tion personnel the dental board for reasons filed with the powers board which succeeded had to the and duties of the Kennedy thereupon brought Civil Sendee Commission. ceedings in against mandate board to restored to his position claiming that under the of the constitu- amendment, tional particularly by virtue of subdivi- (e) sion of said he could amendment not be summarily position by dismissed from the Board Den- court, tal This quoting Examiners. after in full said sub- (e) of division section 5 of Constitution, said article of the merit, held that his claim doing gave was without so provision, its conclusion as follows: “Under this which seems clearly apply petitioner, posi- who had served in his tion for more than six prior amendment, months might permanent employee upon have become a civil service uninterrupted service of his equally term. It is subject period that he during clear to dismissal probationary term, ‘probation- such otherwise the term ary’ meaningless, would be and the distinction between civil permanent status, employees and probationary temporary status, employees with would obliterated. only question Hence the is whether in fact served period obtained status, or during period. dismissed Under amendment, empowered personnel board was fix period the state eight nor more than at not less than two months. On June 1935, months after six the amendment went effect, into eight fixed the resolution term the board at months. period was dismissed within follows that of his probation, protection not entitled to the and was accorded employee.” civil service
672 place
To upon the con- construction of the act section disregard by the petitioner tended for would be settled to statutory rules of and result in eliminat- construction would ing em- obliterating civil service distinction between the ployees permanent probationary employees with status and temporary status, with distinct place these two would employees upon per- equality classes of in far so as the pro- manency positions respective their are security Ken- by tected As stated in the State Civil Service Act. the nedy classes case, place these two which would construction term, employees upon equality such would render the “probationary” persons meaningless, give as it would the positions rights all probationary privileges the employees accorded to civil service status. by was further claimed reason petitioner It that the petitioner by Director for stated Brock the dismissal satisfy the reason did not not a valid for his dismissal and requirements Rule of rule 9 of the Civil Service Commission. part in reads follows: 9 of the Civil Service Commission as capacity probationary period, during the conduct “If the appoint satisfactory been to probationer has not the ing probationer discre power, dismissed, the power, appointing power shall appointing tion and the writing member inform of the commission in the executive the retention of dismissal. Otherwise of the reason such equivalent per probationer service shall be to his appointment.” manent for the Director dismissal reason Brock stated commission, writing him with the
petitioner, and filed
capacity
pro-
conduct
such
was that the
employee during
probationary period
bationary
had
satisfactory
power”.
appointing
me the
As
“not been
and filed with the commission
the director
reason stated
precise language of rule 9 of the Civil Service
followed
grounds
Commission, we fail
see
what
assigned by
the director
contention that
bases
filed with
statement
the commission failed to
his written
rule' 9
requirements of the commission.
satisfy the
contended that the reason stated
is further
petitioner, namely,
con
dismissal
that the
director
probationary
as a
capacity
duct or
satisfactory
period
not been
had
probationary
during require-
appointing power,
is not- sufficient to
meet
seen,
ments of
of the act.
we have
section
As
appointee
states that unless
dismissed
have been
shall
within
power,
period by
appointing
posi-
writing
commission,
reasons stated in
with the
filed
permanent.
tion shall become
is there
Nowhere in the act
requirement
found
would constitute
as to what
employee.
sufficient reason for the
dismissal of a
assigned
The reason
petitioner’s
dismissal was one
vided
rule 9 of
commission,
and the commission
given power by section 8
governing
of said
act make rules
*10
appointment, etc.,
the
including
appli-
the removal of
positions
cants for
given
under
act.
Di-
The reason
given by
rector Brock is the identical reason
the Board of
Dental
Kennedy, serving
Examiners for the dismissal of
a
attorney
term as
for said board. While no
point was
in
made
that case
sufficiency
as to
the
of
reason for
employee’s
the
discharge, and
is
it
not discussed
in
opinion
the
court, undoubtedly
of the
em-
counsel for the
ployee
of
the
that there
merit
was no
in such a
contention and for
point.
that reason did not raise the
As
seen,
we have
given power
the commission
the act
governing
to
rules
employees,
make
removals of
and we have
authority
been cited
to no
that this rule is not within
power
the
adopt.
power
of the commission
given
to
As no
is
pass upon
sufficiency
to
commission
the
the
reason
given, may
well be held that the reason for
discharge
the
person holding
probationary position
of a
a
is within the
power.
(State
sound discretion of the appointing
Will-
v.
iams,
Petitioner has cited briefs a number of authori- support which he contrary ties contends Many rule. duly these cases concerned the removal of elected ap- pointed office, for definite terms officers and did not in involve civil employees. others, manner service In still sought employee discharged to be permanent the was a em- ployee rules of civil under strict service regulations, and readily distinguishable cases are therefore those in- the person holding proba- which involves a simply stant action position. Obviously tionary these are controlling eases not controversy. present in the act, section 9
In the latter sentence found in right to discharged pur commission, have his case considered position, him pose restoring his former vote eligible by unanimous list name be restored to the any position within commission, for certification rejected. had been his class other than the which he one from commis provision' powers This limits the the section clearly indicates subject therein, and sion to one stated discharging appointing power the action of the commission probationary employee is final and that ap question power the reasons stated without respect, section power pointing for such dismissal. act, by the 14 of terms of 9 differs from section power hold a vested with latter section the commission is discharge upon given for hearing pass employee. If of section it should be held that the last sentence act, probationary employee may dismissed 9 of the enumerated the act and for the causes per- terms of said section then the accordance with the holding probationary positions their dismissal are sons advantage em- over civil given a distinct proba- dismissed ployees. For under section tionary employee, accordance 9, may eligible of section restored list last sentence *11 any position within his class other than for certification to rejected. provision he such from which was No the one expect in found section 14 of the nor would to be we provision section, any in the last-named find such which to incompetency, of an for for the removal provides dishonesty, inefficiency, insubordination, and other like causes offenses, 14. are in section These one serious and specified any hardly would be deemed fit for public them guilty of any if we are capacity, but to construe section 9 together, petitioner, pro- as contended and discharged bationary employee of these causes eligible given list and to be restored right given permanent employee such to class, while Evidently, like causes. it was not the intent of removed bring unjust, about unreasonable and to act It seems clear that it was intended situation. unworkable appointing power not limit the to in the of a dismissal bationary employee specified in sec- those serious offenses tion hand, but on the other when in the appointing power probationary employee found has been for, he misfit, be unsuited which in the assigned, was he was might be dismissed and the commission right eligible him for certifi- restore to the list position, cation to another he one which wanting had been found there- and for that reason dismissed from. above, will finding be noted XIV that in mentioned given by court found that the reason Director Brock
his statement to the petitioner’s dismissal commission untrue, adopted by and pretext was a in order to him acquiring frustrate ser civil pe Relying vice status. finding court, this titioner by improper contends his dismissal was actuated part illegal motives on the of the director and therefore and should be Practically declared so court. same was assumed case Kennedy Board, (2d) 340, v. State Personnel Cal. (2d) Pac. The board of dental had [57 examiners 486]. Kennedy’s stated as reason for dismissal that his conduct capacity satisfactory had not appointing been power. reason, seen, given by same we have Di petitioner’s Kennedy rector Brock dismissal. contended that this reason was untrue as the Board of Dental Examiners passed time of his adopted had at the dismissal a resolu although they tion that his were satisfactory, services subse quently passed declaring another resolution that his services unsatisfactory charging were him with improper politi activity. passing upon In Kennedy, cal this contention of only remaining said: “The court contention of requires mention improper which is that his dismissal was for alleges this connection motives. that his services were satisfactory by declared the dental board in a resolution dismissal, adopted at the time of subsequently passed charging resolution was him another with unsatis improper factory political activity. conduct In our allegations present appropriate do not opinion these case *12 review. There judicial is no sufficient affirmative show part bad on the board, faith ing fraud or of 676 inquiry extraneous recognized an into
has been rule that execu possible motive of an improper facts to determine the employee is dismissing tive or board administrative (2d) justified. MacGillivray, 1 Cal. (See Livingstone v. Kennelly, ; 75 Conn. (2d) v. Pac. State [36 622] 555].)” Atl. [55 finding XIV foregoing
From we of conclude that Brock for the trial Director court that the reason petitioner or reason not a valid sufficient dismissal of was sup- position is not probationary for his dismissal his from ported by entirely upon finding the evidence. This is based Act assumption 14 of Civil Service that section the State persons posi- controls the dismissal of state, civil service and that tions of was stated Director Brock for the dismissal of causes, specified in said grounds, of not one reasons was assumption the trial court section of the act. this appli- section 9 of said and not section error as proba- person holding a dismissal of controls the cable In the tionary in the civil service the state. petitioner, Brock, power Director the appointing dismissal of posi- which requirements tion, complied all said legally said act order to dismiss judg- was, legal, and position. therefore, His dismissal of the trial court herein reversed with ment directions judgment that the writ issued its alternative heretofore enter peremptory discharged writ be and that denied. J., Shenk, J., Langdon, Edmonds, J., Waste, J., C. concurred. J., Dissenting.
HOUSER, dissent. I appeal of the above-entitled had been ren- After decision Division of First Dis- the First District of the dered Appeal, petition hearing trict Court cause Following granted. study further facts court thereto, I appertain am that the law convinced of the employed by reasoning that was Dis- correctness Appeal conclusion law Court trict thereon, expressed in the and ruling which reached Tyler by Hr. Justice court. Accord- prepared were *13 by correctly express- ingly, adopted is as the said me ing my question presented with views reference to the that appeal. follows, on the It as to wit: tempo- petitioner, years “The who had for several held a rary agriculture and, by in department the state Constitution, virtue of approved an amendment to the state adopted by and Novem- electors at the election held on 6, 1934, probationary employee, ber was a status of during probation was the term dismissed from his by Brock, by A. A. department, as director of whom or said by predecessor years whose ap- some before he had been pointed temporary position. to said brought He this action against director, said joining per- members the state (successor sonnel commission), board to the civil service Brownrigg, thereof, Ray William executive officer and Riley L. controller, seeking peremptory as state a writ (ex- mandate, commanding respondents several named cept Ray Riley L. controller) posi- as him restore to his tion, commanding and him pay the last named to the amount salary he would have for his removal up earned the time of if reinstatement, such should decreed. In ad- sought general dition damages his removal. petition
“Included allegations were to the effect prior that at time to his dismissal did A. Brock, A. department, director of the nor superiors other of his express or indicate to dissatisfaction or with capacity criticism of his conduct or as such employee; that 24, 1935, January by on him Brock dismissed written com- munication, in which he stated as his therefor that petitioner’s capacity conduct or as such em- satisfactory ployee him; had not been January 18, that on 1935, Brock, by terms, letters couched similar dismissed employees other department, two others, January 26th four that., on as in case, his own by no dissatisfaction their services had expressed been them either of them. Brock to No actions been have brought was further alleged in the other cases. that Brock dismissal of reason so stated reason for dismissal valid civil not a service em- causes, grounds not one of ployee or reasons (Stats. 14 of the Civil specified 1913, in section Service Act p. 251) p. 1035, amended Stats. as causes person holding for which reason so stated might dismissed; that the
of the act in order adopted said Brock pretext and was a untrue XXIV of article intent of to frustrate and defeat the acquiring prevent petitioner from state Constitution and to department; also civil service status said personal Brock, dismissing petitioner, was actuated malice. con- political motives and considerations and salary al- it was payment nection with his demand de- leged petition that at all times director partment control, there agriculture under his had treasury, money was in the state sum of available salary. purpose pay sufficient *14 they answer, unverified, “The filed an in which defendants by that reason for of denied Brock the dismissal pretext untrue, or a that it was resorted to in order defeat the intent of article XXIV to of prevent petitioner acquiring from civil Constitution to a status, personal motives, by or that he was actuated allegations political considerations or malice. The as to availability of under control of the of funds director department agriculture payment petitioner’s of of denied; alleged affirmatively demand were also and it was pursuant that the dismissal was made under and terms 9, rule 1 of the civil of sections and service commission (board personnel). oi findings made filed
“The court and of fact and conclusions were in favor of the of law. These ex- charge the dismissal was ception malicious, found in which the court favor of the defendants. It ordered reinstating peti- peremptory writ. of mandate to issue paid salary be the amount of and that he would tioner but for dismissal. have earned appeal, support have taken this and in “The defendants by supported as not the evidence certain of thereof attack findings findings, namely, XXI, XIV and the court’s and also principal court to find that the refusal of the Act, in section 9 the Civil Service re- contained the rule dismissing employee reasons quiring writing commission, filed with the stated to be contention, with their and its refusal in accordance dismissing petitioner, find that actuated Brock personal political motives or considerations. ‘ ‘‘ following The part finding XIV: is the material Depart- Brock, reason so stated A. A. director of the as Neu- B. Agriculture, ment of the dismissal of Edward is dismis- wald ... not a valid or reason for the sufficient sal of . a civil service . . causes, Act, State Civil Service of the and is not one
grounds specified or reasons Civil State person Service Act for which a as causes under the Civil Service the State dismissed, Act not a reason or cause satisfy requirements dismissal sufficient of section of the State Civil Service Act or of rule Civil State Service Commission. The reason so A. A. Brock, stated Department Agriculture as director of the . . . and his reason, of his untrue, statement and was and is adopted by a pretext respondent Brock, A. acting A. di- Department rector of the Agriculture, in order to frus- trate defeat the purpose intent art. XXIV prevent Constitution of California and Edward B. Neu- wald acquiring civil service status. .. . dismissing respondent so Edward B. Neuwald the A. A. Brock acted violation of law but he was not actuated personal malice.’
“It is conceded on behalf being probationary period (created of service provi- under the sions of XXIV article granted Constitution and *15 temporary employees undergone who had competitive ex- no amination, consequently any had never had status on an list) eligible he could be appointing dismissed the ; officer contended, first, it but is that he could be only dismissed for or one more of the in reasons enumerated section 14 of the Act, found; Service as the trial court second, .Civil if reason, any specified be dismissed for other could that was nevertheless insufficient. Brock act, far “Section of so as here material, reads as every person ‘The tenure of position follows: un- provisions during of good the this act shall be behavior, der may any person removed, suspended be demoted, but pay with pay, or reduced transferred without to another reprimanded, class, in same the or restored pay may procedure equitable with such be under a conformity provisions in which shall the of this section up by regulations, be set the commission rules and its any in- following incompetency, inefficiency, of causes: the subordination, intemperance, immorality, profan- dishonesty, ity, public employees, discourteous other treatment the or improper political disobedience, activity, wilful violation provisions regulations the rules and this act or the . the commission. . . “ appointing power may charges against . . ‘The . file subject employed by person under state to the for dismissal action visions or other corrective or all provided of the and sus- causes hereinbefore pend such from until service such time as charges against him investigated shall been heard or have charges commission and a decision rendered. Such writing clearly specific must be made act state the ’ employee constituting or acts of the . . such cause. . goes provide charges upon on service employee, procedure hearing and a for their and determina- tion the commission or the ex- or commissioner chief any agent commission, aminer decision that the commission shall final. be “ quite respect language general is obvious section, namely, every person found ‘the tenure of act’, ap- of this plies passed employees who have their probationary period tenure, appli- is also employees. to probationary cable pre- When the statute grounds upon which employees scribes civil removed, they are removable specified for one of those grounds. Here language points the section out employee may removed, what offenses and the mere unsatisfactory fact that to Brock is not a suf-. reason under act for ficient his removal. The trial court took evidence as to the conduct of during long period employment him and found prior at all times his dismissal to be without fault. We are fully supports judgment. the evidence further
“It claimed that there supporting evidence XXI, finding that there were funds in the treasury to meet pleaded Petitioner demand. existence the state *16 purpose. treasury money a sum sufficient petition, verified While unverified answer filed in the sufficient sum the trial court found that there was a judgment treasury purpose, which the state available for the these circum- purpose. Under orders to be used for that prove there officers to stances the state the burden knowledge facts.” they special fund as had J., rehearing. Rehearing Houser, voted for a denied. February In Bank. A. No. 16693. 1939.] [L. al., Appellants, LILLIE M.
FLORENCE LORD et v. etc., Respondent. ATCHISON, Executrix,