*1 SEATON, v. SECRETARY VITARELLI INTERIOR, OF THE al. et 1, 1959. 1-2, June Argued April 1959. Decided No. 101. *2 J. .Hynning argued petitioner. cause for Clifford With him on Harry the brief E. Sprogell. was
John G. Laughlin, Jr. argued respondents. cause for With him on Rankin, the brief were Solicitor General Assistant Attorney Doub General D. and Samuel Slade. delivered the
Mr. Justice Harlan opinion Court. concerns,
This case the legality as an employee of Department of the Interior.. Vitarelli, holding an educator a. degree doctor’s from University,"' Columbia appointed in 1952 by the Department of the as an Interior Education Training and Specialist Education of the Trust Territory Islands, Pacific at Koror in the Palau District, a mandated area country this has. responsibility.
By a letter dated 30, March 1954, respondent Secre- tary’s predecessor in office petitioner notified of his sus- pension duty from pay, April 2, effective 1954, assigning ground therefor charges. various Essen- tially, the charges petitioner were that from 1941 to 1945 three named with association” “sympathetic had been sympathetic of or members to have been alleged persons concealed Party, and had the Communist association associations of these extent the Government from true he had them; into inquiry previous time of a at the Party Labor American supporter a registered as to the USSR subscribed City York New copies of the purchased and had Bulletin, Information such that because Masses; and and New Daily Worker to show activities tended associations employ- trustworthy” his “not reliable continued of national best interests “contrary to the might ment security.” the statement answer to filed written
Petitioner hearing board appeared before charges, *3 hearing no evidence At this July 1, 22 and 1954. on June charges, the support in Department was adduced the Petitioner testify against petitioner. nor did witness and he witnesses, four presented and length, testified by the extensively cross-examined and the witnesses were hearing of the board. security and the members officer effective a notice of dismissal September 2, 1954, On signature petitioner sent over September 10,1954, was “in the the dismissal was Secretary, reciting specifically the reasons national for interest of 30, dated March 1954.” charges, set forth in the letter of 21, 1954, filing September This was followed on setting Action” forth the of a of Personnel “Notification copy show that a Secretary’s action. The record does not petitioner. of this document was ever sent failed reinstatement a demand having After to obtain Secretary, upon petitioner filed suit the United District for the District of Columbia seek- States Court that his ing illegal declaration dismissal had been and injunction requiring ineffective and his reinstatement. 10, 1956, while the case pending On October 538 of Personnel “Notification of a new Court, copy
District reciting and 21, 1954, September Action,” dated original bearing and replaces “a revision another Court, District and filed same date,’’.was shortly of this document was delivered copy one identical with the This notification was thereafter. any refer- it omitted mentioned, except already to the petitioner’s the reason for ence to Thereafter it was carried out.1 authority under which summary for the granted judgment Court the District judgment That was affirmed Court respondent. dissenting. App. 102 S. D. C. Appeals, judge one U. F. to consider the 316, granted 253 2d 338. certiorari We S.,871. validity petitioner’s discharge. 358 U. Secretary’s 30, 1954, letter of March and notice of September 1954, upon both relied Exec. 2, 10450, (1953), Order No. 18 Fed. the Act of Reg. 2489 August 26, 1950, seq., C. 22-1 et 476, § Stat. U. S. of the Interior Order No. all relat 2738, ing discharges government employees or loyalty grounds, authority petitioner’s as the dis In Young, missal. Cole v. U. S. this Court. held that the statute apply referred to did not government employees positions designated “sensitive.” Respondent takes position that since position government service has át no time been designated Cole, as sensitive the effect of which was decided after the 1954 dismissal of petitioner, was to *4 render also inapplicable to Department of the Interior Order No. 2738, under which the proceedings relating petitioner’s to dismissal were urged had. It is 1 An affidavit of the custodian of records of Civil .the Service Com mission, filed in together the District Court with this revised notifi cation, states “That all of the records said Commission have been expunged findings of all adverse respect made with to Mr. William Vincent Vitarelli under Executive Order 10450.”
lO eo os- coneededly in affairs petitioner, this state of who Act, at time the of the Civil Service protection no within any Act, relating Veterans' Preference other statute to employment rights government employees, who, summarily A” been dis- employee, “Schedule could have any giving time without the charged by Secretary reason, of a under no circumstances could be entitled to already namely, more than that which he has received — an “expunging” from the record of his 1954 any to the authority reference or reasons therefor.’
Respondent our misconceives effect of decision Cole. August 26, 1950, It is true that the Act of and the Executive the power Secretary Order did not alter discharge summarily employee status, giving any without reason. Nor did the Depart- regulations ment’s own preclude such a course. Since, however, Secretary gratuitously give decided a rea- son, and that was national he security, reason was obli- gated to conform procedural to the standards he had formulated Order No. 2738 for employees security Dulles, on grounds. Service v. U. S. 363. That Order on its face all applies discharges Department of the Interior, including such discharges of A employees. Schedule Cole Young v. established that the Act of August 26, 1950, did not permit the discharge of employees nonsensitive pursuant procedures authorized that Act if procedures those were more summary than those to which employee would have been entitled any pre-existing virtue of statute or regulation. That decision cannot, however, justify noncompliance regulations him promulgated by departmental Order, which as to petitioner greater procedural protections afford in the case of a dismissal stated to be security reasons than in the case of dismissal statement of reasons. Having chosen to procéed against petitioner
540 Service, was bound Secretary here,
grounds, promulgated for he himself regulations though regu- even without such cases, with such dealing petitioner summarily. discharged he could have lations constitu- makes contentions as to the Petitioner various invalidity procedures provided tional Order assuming that urges No. 2738. He further even procedures, of his dismissal cannot validity governing hearing suspension given stand because the notice of him comply not find it unneces- did Order. We sary to reach the constitutional we think that issues, petitioner’s position well second is taken and must be sustained.
Preliminarily, departures should be said that from departmental regulations in matters of this kind involve more procedural than mere consideration of irregularities. For in proceedings nature, ordinary of this in which the rules of evidence do apply, not involving which matters the disclosure of withheld, confidential information are and where it must recognized is counsel under practical objections constraints in the making.of and in the tactical handling his case which would not obtain in a being cause in a tried court of law before trained judges, scrupulous observance departmental procedural safeguards clearly particular importance.2 In this instance examination the record, and of the tran- script of the hearing before the departmental board, procedural discloses rights under the applicable regulations were violated at least three respects in material proceedings which terminated in the final notice his dismissal. First, 15 (a) § of Order No. requires
. the' statement of charges upon served an employee at the time already noted, As we question do not reach the of the constitu permissibility tional of an adjudication administrative based on “confidential information” employee. disclosed to the specific security grounds “shall be as suspension his the need considerations, including and detailed as *6 information, per- for sources of protection confidential 30 subject and amendment within mit . . . shall be to charges days the statement of of issuance.”. Although reasonably face to be petitioner appears on its furnished establishes that specific;3 transcript hearing jvhich statement, amended, conceivably never cannot was specific “security be said in fact to be as detailed as and ques- . . permit.” considerations . For was officer the . hearing tioned and in great concerning board detail with and Jhis association organizations knowledge persons various and nowhere in the charges,4 length mentioned statement of and at concerning Bugks his County, Pennsylvania, activities and charges elsewhere after activities as to which the are completely questions also silent. pre- These were sumably they asked because were deemed relevant inquiry before the board, very and the they fact spread were' asked and thus on the record is conclusive 3 charges The substance of the pp. 536-537, has been stated on supra. charges The statement alleged referred to asso only ciations persons, “F-, W-, with three named and W-During hearing officer, course however, you asked “How well did L- know- B-? . . . you Did you meet ever H-B-C-? . . . Did ever meeting remember Further, petitioner J-L-?” questioned knowledge as his relationships of and with a- wide variety organizations charges. not mentioned statement of you Thus he was asked: know “Do what Black Mountain Tran- yoü organization scendentalism is? . . . Do recall the name of National Council Friendship? Soviet-American . . . How about the Southern Conference for Human . Welfare? . . What organization is the called Refugee Joint Antifascist the. Commit- you tee? any . . . Have ever had Negro contact Youth. Congress? .. \ How Brigade? about Abraham Lincoln . . . Have you magazine ever heard of called ‘Cooperative I Union’? ... wondering whether had ever heard Consumers'Hnion?” “security considerations” could not have
indication justified them concerning the omission of charges petitioner. furnished
Second, 21 (a) (e) require hearings before §§ and security hearing “orderly” boards shall and that “rea- be imposed relevancy,, sonable restrictions shall competency, materiality of matters considered.” The material set forth in the margin, taken from the tran- script, illustrative rather than exhaustive, shows that these indispensable indicia of &meaningful hearing were It observed.5 is. not an say overcharacterization Armstrong departmental security officer, “Mr. inquiring [the petitioner's about Georgia college]: activities as a in a Were teacher designed *7 put these activities to be into effect both the white and your . feelings colored races? . . What were at that time con cerning equality? civil, rights.? race . . . How about Did that your groups?”- enter into a discussion in seminar Armstrong: interpret your “Mr. correctly Do I maybe Negroes and Jews are denied some of their constitutional rights present? at “Mr. Vitarelli: Yes. Armstrong: way?
“Mr. In what I saw it jobs in the South where certain were “Mr.-Vitarelli: open people open Negroes to white they and not because were Negroes. university, quota ... In our own there was a at Columbia College for the they they medical students. Jewish, Because were only permit many. would thought wrong. so I that was Doctor, “Chairman Towson :- isn’t it also true that Columbia College quotas by states and other classifications as well?
“Mr. may I don’t remember that. It be true. Vitarelli: Armstrong: “Mr. words, quota In other wasn’t there a on Gentiles as well as Jews?
“Mr. Vitarelli: I ... had remembered that some Jews seemed feel, felt, too, time, they being and I at the persecuted were somewhat. eyer “Chairman investigate Towson: Did take the trouble they
whether you just or not were accept or did their word?
bpV C* co that as it hearing proceeded developed into a wide- ranging inquisition into this man’s educational, social, political beliefs, encompassing and- a question even as to whether he was “a religious man.”
“Mr. Vitarelli: I didn’t No, investigate it. accepted
“Chairman Towson : You their word for it. “Mr. I accepted general opinion Vitabe'lli: group with whom I associated and was professors, taught. . . . simply asking you “Chairman I verify vague am Towson: impression College puts quota I that Columbia a severe on resi- have City, race, may dents of New York whatever their creed or color be. “Mr. Vitarelli: I think that is true. ...
“Chairman Towson: there Otherwise would be no students College except City. Columbia of New York resident^ may “Mr. others, mostly Vitarelli: There be a few but New York City. quota system designed
“Chairman Towson : Isn’t true that the college persons order to make it available' to other'than City? live New York
“Mr. I believe that is the .reason. Vitarelli: “Chairman Towson : And exclusion of a resident óf New York City reason, race, would for that rather than the creed color? way policy
“Mr. Vitarelli: I think that is the is stated. ‘ “Chairman Is it not a fact? Towson: I don’t think so. . . n . “Mr. Vitarelli: me, Armstrong. “Chairman Towson: Excuse Mr. Armstrong: “Mr. years I went to Law Columbia School for two certainly any quota system time, there was not there at that long ago. right, getting and that is a time All we are afield.” *8 following questions by Petitioner was also asked the .the during hearing: officer course of the the Armstrong: you reply “Mr. I think indicated in an answer or a interrogatory you sponsored the to an that at times voted for and principles Roosevelt, Thomas, of Franklin Delano Norman A. Henry you many . Wallace? . . . How times vote for . . di.d you say Henry if care to ? . . . How about Walláce? . . . [Thomas] platform Did his more How about Norman Thomas? coincide nearly your democracy? two, time, with ideas or ... At one you you strong Are were a advocate of the United Nations. ' “to right the employee the
Third, (c) (4) gives 21§ the ‘support offered any witness cross-examine reading of the an over-all from apparent is charges.” It pro this that contemplated it not that regulations witnesses to call Department require the should vision charges, because all any or support testify information rest on charges might that expected We informants.” by from or “confidential gathered the call contemplate (c) did however, (4) § that think, properly any informant by ing by furnished if information “confidential,” classifiable as assessing by the board be used that informant was to that this transcript The shows employee’s status.6 up you quite hepped indicates, too, were still? . . . file time; right?” world is'that over the one idea at one presented by petitioner were officer Witnesses asked questions members such as: and board acquainted with and talked “The that he was Doctor indicated you . . . Thomas Did know about that? to Norman on occasions. good scholarly? adminis- Dr. Vitarelli? Is he ... A How about language students . he with his around the trator? . . Was careless religious you . . . Dr. Vitarelli as a or careful? Did consider equality ... In . Was he an extremist on of races? man? . . you worked on that with the activities that Dr. Vitarelli connection about, projects or in with know either in form of connection they mentioned, extend to have did educational activities country?, words, they Negro population In other were of the Negro Negro Negro instructors, with groups, with contacts with students, and so on?” apparent how of the above matters could be material
It'is not question of the whether retention to a consideration security. government service would be consistent national (e) reading provision supported 6 This of-the §21 may Order, part employee “if is or provides handicapped by to him of confidential information the nondisclosure informants, opportunity confidential lack cross-examine consideration,” hearing thus shall take that fact into board right employee is-to have the to cross-examine implying that provide who into con informants material taken nonconfidential by the board. sideration *9 at
provision peti on at least one occasion was violated officer-identified name hearing, tioner’s for the considered, person given apparently a who had information in petitioner, any possible detrimental to thus negating was a “confidential person ference considered identity necessary secret, keep informant” whose it was questioned petitioner length at some concerning n supplied information calling from this source without affording petitioner informant and right to cross- examine.7 thé proceedings attendant upon petitioner’s
Because from government dismissal grounds of national service security fell substantially short requirements of-the applicable departmental regulations, hold that such we dismissal was illegal and of no effect.
Respondent urges that if even Septem dismissal of ber 10,1954, invalid, petitioner was is not entitled to rein statement reason of the fact that he was all events vaiidly dismissed October when a 1956, copy of the second' “Notification of Personnel Action,” omitting all any reference to order, statute, regulation relating seeúrity was discharges, delivered to him. Granting that at any could September time after 10, 1954, have validly petitioner dismissed statement - of reasons, and independently of the proceedings taken against him under Order No. we cannot view the delivery of the new petitioner notification to as an exercise summary of that power. Rather, the fact that “9-21-54,” was dated contained a termination of em ployment date “9-10-54,” designated as “a revi sion” of the 1954 notification, and was evidently filed criticized, petitioner information was to the effect that “bourgeois” purchase of a house woman associate Georgia. flatly Petitioner denied that he had made the remark him, attributed and said that he could never have made such except spirit of-levity. in a delivery to indi
the District Court before its moot purpose attempt cates that its sole *10 “expunging” in an petitioner’s suit the District Court brought Order No. grounds for the which would not play.8 these’'circumstances, 2738 into we In. action, plainly in justified treating be now the 1956 of relief to grant intended as 1954 as an discharge, with the form of the connection as Secretary’s summary power removal exercise of the delivery petitioner.9 the date of its that petitioner, what have said It follows we from subject, he seeks, to the reinstatement entitled which the.Secretary’s author- exercise of course lawful him in the employment hereafter to dismiss from ity of the Interior. Department
Reversed. - whom Mr. Justice Clark, Frankfurter, Justice Mr. and Mr. Justice Stewart join, Justice Whittaker Mr. concurring part dissenting part.
An agency rigorously executive must held to the professes standards its to be judged. action Exchange Chenery Corp., See Securities & Comm’n v. Accordingly, S. 87-88. if dismissal from U. Secretary successfully position Thé took in the courts below only possible discharge that defect in the 1954 was the articula security” grounds therefor, tion of the “national and that since that such, “expunging” defect did not void the dismissal as of these grounds gave petitioner the maximum relief to which he could possibly be entitled. 9Respondent’s brief in this Court refers to the 1956 notice as part taken,” of “corrective administrative action which has been voluntarily upon [petitioner].” premise “relief accorded dissenting essentially opinion which the rests —that the 1956 action retroactively” attempt was an “to Vitarelli is con —thus trary Secretary’s position to the own as to for that action. reason though even procedure, a defined is based on employment agency, bind such requirements beyond generous See observed. scrupulously must be procedure evolved judicially This Dulles, 363. 354 U. S. v. Service and, firmly established law is now of administrative rule procedural takes the He that rightly so. may add, if I I unre- Therefore, that sword. perish with shall sword conclusion, main in the Court’s servedly join 1954 was September of Vitarelli attempted dismissal under procedure because validity and of no abortive invoked No. 2738 Order the Interior but not observed. freedom on the draws agency an executive
But when deny or cur- cannot judiciary it, vests that the law *11 con- the Interior Secretary of The freedom. tail such out to dismiss Vitarelli right had untrammelled cededly n rights. employment protected he had no hand, since of is not who employer a freely private as He do so could bargain- aof collective restrictions by procedural bound law-imposed was under no Secretary The ing contract. in employee an discharging in self-imposed restriction of reasons without position Vitarelli’s is, question did Secre- hearing. And so a discharge in the abortive action, after tary take dismissing Vitarelli? copy o a upon
T Vitarelli 1956 there was served October in had been inserted a notice of dismissal of new in the first place records of personnel Department’s the District Court filed with copy Another notice. men- contained no This second proceeding. in this notice this sending instead of discharge. If, of grounds tion of Secretary telephoned Vitarelli, notice to second notice, he of the second convey the contents to Vitarelli contesting are you “I note that have said: would very this clear I to make the dismissal. want validity of dismissing you before, If I did not succeed you. retroactively, and I dismiss you, I now dismiss effective 1954.” September second significance disallows this
The Court controlling meaning it finds discharge notice of because expunging that’the suggestion (cid:127)in the Government the second comment, and from the adverse record of the effective- dischargé, a signified notice reassertion so, And the Court attempt ness of the at dismissal. first service concludes, no of severance from intention no Secretary expressed since the legally could found But had been effective. doubt the first dismissal paper a piece this document of 1956 was not mere a mani- paper process, dialectic. The was a record of purpose of the festation of and action. intendment notice, to be sure, second was to Vitarelli retroactively, resting attempted this dismissal on valid authority summary without reason. power dismiss —the Though pre-date the second notice not the sum- could mary discharge Secretary because the rested his dis- charge ground, unsustainable Vitarelli could n not be deprived rights during years two accrued discharge, prior unlawful wrongful action did deprive the power him fire Vitarelli And if the intent of the mani- Secretary be prospectively.' hpwever fact did, what he- intent be fested the intent to be rid of Vitarelli —the expressed here,'— should not frustrate Secretary’s rightful Court exer- power cise of this as of-October 1956. The fact that he *12 wished accomplish more does not mean accomplished he nothing. administratively construe second notice to mean
To nothing Secretary to attribute to the purpose of a diarist, mere Department’s corrector of entries in. archives. This wholly disregards the actualities conduct of a concerned with terminating the employee services of an undesired completely and If accomplished. may legally means whatever .that whom employee an over him before summons employer an to him: says power he has unfettered you I last fired here because employed no longer “You are conclusion escape the reasonably one week,” can not effec- and had in error though employer last employee fire the tively purpose out his carried pres- manifests clearly week, employer’s intention and an is dismissed employee ent belief that the Certainly the em- dismissed? he be foreverafter his was now. employment doubt ployee have no would if document were special Of some formal end. course a relationship, about a severance required bring Co., S. because cf. Felter v. Southern 359 U. Pacific formality severance non-compliance formality But such being. into no would not come requisite to Vitarelli’s dismissal. it: In 1956 the
This is the common sense of you “This tells said to document Vitarelli: right along ifs, ands,.or buts, you have been fired presently course this employed that means are not he Department.” successfully Since had not been fired in 1954, the he must still be employed. Court concludes interpretation I join cannot án unreal which attributes governmental empty meaning action the of confetti throwing.