*2 CRAIG, DOYLE, BARRY, Before COLINS, PALLADINO, SMITH, McGINLEY JJ.

CRAIG, Judge. This appeal, by Bernard Snyder from a decision of the (SERB) State Retirement Board benefits, terminating payment his chiefly poses *3 the of Snyder whether should be to deemed have been “removed from a judge 16(b) office” as under art. Constitution, entitlement, of the Pennsylvania so toas lose pension to compensation, left Snyder where office as a losing result of a retention election after the Judicial In- quiry (JIRB) petitioned Review Board had Supreme the removal, Court for his but Supreme before date Court’s decision adopting JIRB’s recommendation. This court that question answers in the affirmative.

The facts dispute. are not in Snyder judge served as a the Court of Philadelphia Common Pleas of County from 5, 1976 January until his failure to win retention in the fall election of 1985 caused his incumbency that office to 5, cease as of January record, to the

According attained the superannua- age 22, 1985, tion of 60 on pension October and his benefits by age. 25, 1985, then vested On November he purchased his pension plan 2.344 years military service. The JIRB, pursuant investigative procedures its under Penn- sylvania constitution, statutes and petition filed a with the 1, Supreme July Court on recommending 1985 that Judge Snyder be removed from the office of judge, on the basis of

103 in his improprieties findings of various JIRB’s 1985, pending while the case was In November conduct. Court, City of the the electors Supreme before in Judge retention of denied the Philadelphia 5, January ended such, his term of office so that as Supreme Court Thereafter, on March In Judicial JIRB removal recommendation. adopted the 142, A.2d v. Pa. 523 Snyder, Board 514 and Review quiry 100, denied, 484 U.S. 829, 108 cert. (1987), S.Ct. I). (1987) {Snyder L.Ed.2d 61 another represents in case variation issue Pennsylva v. In Glancey among series of similar cases. Pa. Retirement Common State Employes’ nia en (1989), 457, equally an divided 560 A.2d wealth Ct. Glancey’s applica denial of affirmed the SERB’s court banc benefits, resigned and Glancey where tion for retirement Supreme of the Court before the order retired from office recommendation as JIRB’s removal accepted the which office. holding judicial him from and forever barred Glancey State Shiomos in recently, more Even Board, 128 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. (1989), court affirmed SERB’s 562 A.2d 969 N. Thomas benefits of suspension in had a senior retired 1984 but served who had designation Novem- until the Chief Justice revoked discipli- commenced the JIRB shortly ber the recom- filing which resulted JIRB nary proceedings the Su- from office with for Shiomos’ removal mendation Supreme August 1987. Pursuant to preme Court on *4 re- with of the JIRB recommendation acceptance Court’s was this court concluded that Shiomos spect to office so to cause the removed from as deemed to be law 16(b) of under art. pension payments of his cessation § which, part, in pertinent the Constitution reads: or justice, paid any judge

No shall be compensation from suspended or removed peace who is justice this article or under article under office Section 18 of art. Y is section which establishes the prescribes JIRB and its functions.

For guidance respect legal with to the import of the Supreme Court’s acceptance JIRB removal recom- I, mendation as Snyder, we turn to which the pertinent portions of majority opinion Mr. by Justice Hutchinson are as follows:

In November of argument, we heard electors in City Philadelphia Judge Snyder’s denied quest for a judge, retention as Common Pleas ren- thus dering moot the of whether this Court should him remove from judicial [citations omitted]. results, however, election not ended responsibili- have our ty where other issues omitted]____ remain. [Citations find respondent’s

We the evidence of derelictions clear Taking on this convincing togeth- record. all of them er, we also find that their cumulative effect is so serious removal, that by recommended of the Judi- majority cial Inquiry and only Review would be the appro- priate Though sanction. Judge Snyder has been already by voters, removed from office it remains for us to impose the judicial sanction which will render intend- ed operation of Section 18 complete. Otherwise the ac- tion of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board have would no legal effect.

Through the people Section 18 have entrusted to this Court the task of finally determining judge whether a disciplined and, so, should be if the extent of disci- pline and its consequences. Those consequences are not necessarily restricted to the term for which the has been elected or retained he engages when in improprieties require cases, which In discipline. most this when Court sitting justices acts to remove or language judges, 18(1) Section itself bars them from further ser- In instance, vice. the electors have removed Judge Court, from It is however, office. only which can sanction respondent for his conduct him by finding *5 this office. On any judicial to hold

ineligible hereafter The It is so ordered. do so. record, duty is our to it and Review Inquiry of the Judicial recommendation are denied. petitions respondent’s and adopted Board is 298-9. 152-3, A.2d at Pa. at from office Judge Snyder case, departure In this election, Supreme retention losing a result from action, analogous departure is final Court’s from departure in and the Glancey resignation by office Shiomos, in designation senior by revocation by action before final occurred of which also both Supreme Court. and in Glancey court decisions with the

Consistent Court’s action Supreme import we read adoption of a Supreme Court’s I to that the in be office, by as submitted from for removal recommendation under law, from office constitutes, in a removal JIRB, 16(c). art. Constitution the terms case, poses also in issue As the second authority its exceeded SERB question whether service benefits accrued denying Snyder This court of improprieties. before his commission given adversely that same has decided already and Shio appellants Glancey Snyder and the position mos, precedents. those and we follow is affirmed. order SERB

ORDER of the State NOW, the order August 13, 1988, in No. Case October dated 189-16-2605, is affirmed. not

CRUMLISH, Jr., Judge, participate did President in this case. in the decision SMITH, JJ., dissent. COLINS McGINLEY, Judge, dissenting.

I dissent for the same reasons as set forth in my dissent- ing opinion in Shiomos v. State Employes’ Board, Pa. Commonwealth Ct. (1989). A.2d 969

562 A.2d 1002 FURNITURE, Petitioner, & TOWN COUNTRY FINE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (CHARLES K. JERRECHIAN & SONS and Cooley), Respondents.

Patricia S. Commonwealth Pennsylvania. Court of

Argued June Aug. Decided David Florig, Craven, S. Charles W. Bond, Thomas R. Marshall, Warner, Dennehey, Coleman Goggin, & Philadel- phia, for petitioner.

Christopher H. Wright, Dunn, Haase, Sullivan, Mallon & Cherner, Media, for Patricia S. Cooley.