Indiana State Personnel Bd. v. Parkman

• Decision Date: 12 March 1969
• Docket Number: 369S49,No. 20675,20675
• Citation: 252 Ind. 44,245 N.E.2d 153
• Parties: INDIANA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Appellant, Ira PARKMAN, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 153

245 N.E.2d 153

252 Ind. 44

INDIANA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Appellant Ira PARKMAN, Appellee.

No. 20675, 369S49.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 12, 1969.

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Douglas B. McFadden, Duejean C. Garrett, Asst. Attys. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellant

Isadore D. Rosenfeld, South Bend, Alvin D. Blieden, Michigan City, for appellee.

ON PETITION TO TRANSFER

HUNTER, Judge.

From 1958 to 1964, Ira Parkman, the respondent, was employed as Hospital Administrator at the Indiana State Prison. On April 10, 1964, the prison Warden notified Parkman that he was suspended for thirty days and that at the end of said period of time his employment would be terminated. He was informed of the reasons for the action and of his right to appeal to the Indiana State Personnel Board.

On or about April 16, 1964, Parkman did appeal to the Personnel Board. A hearing was held on April 26 and 27, 1965, and, on June 10, 1965, the Board issued a ruling upholding his dismissal. On June 16, 1965, Parkman filed three documents with the Marion County Superior Court:

(1) A 'NOTICE OF FILING AN APPEAL' addressed to the Secretary of the Indiana State Personnel Board and to the Deputy Attorney General. (At the bottom of this document, the Secretary of the Personnel Board has signed an acknowledgment that he received a copy of the notice.)

(2) A 'CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND CHANGE', containing a 'finding of facts and final determination' by the Personnel Board.

(3) The letter which Parkman received from the Warden informing him of his dismissal and advising him of his right to appeal.

On June 21, 1965, Parkman's attorney sent a letter to the Judge of the Marion County Superior Court explaining that the appeal was brought pursuant to Ind.Ann.Stat. § 60--1350 (1961 Repl.) and requesting that the court set a date for a hearing. No other pleading or document was filed before July 6, 1965, when the Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss on the following grounds:

'1. The Appellant has not followed the statutory procedure to give this Court jurisdiction in this cause.

2. The Appellant has failed to ive this Court jurisdiction by securing a certified copy of the transcript of the proceedings before the administrative agency within fifteen (15) days of filing the appeal.

3. The Appellant specifically requests a trial de novo and this Court has no jurisdiction to determine said cause de novo.

4. The Appellant has failed to give this Court jurisdiction in that he has not filed this appeal in the county of his residence or the county in which the dismissal order or determination is to be carried out and enforced as required by law.

5. The Appellant has failed to properly commence this action by serving his petition on the Attorney General of the State of Indiana.'

In a memorandum filed with the motion, the Attorney General contended that the Administrative Adjudication and Court Review Act, Ind.Ann.Stat. §§ 63--3001 to 3030 (1961 Repl.) governed an appeal from a decision of the Indiana State Personnel Board, and that the procedures established by this Act had not been followed by the respondent. The Superior Court overruled the motion to dismiss, and this Court declined to grant the Attorney General's petition for a writ of prohibition.

On April 4, 1966, the Attorney General filed a transcript of the hearing before the Indiana State Personnel Board. Two days later, the respondent moved to strike the transcript contending that, under Ind.Ann.Stat. § 60--1350 (1961 Repl.), he was entitled to a de novo proceeding. The Court sustained the appellee's motion and ordered the transcript of the hearing struck from the record. A hearing was then held in the Superior Court and on August 5, 1966, the court entered special findings of facts and conclusions of law, determined that Parkman had been dismissed without cause, and ordered reinstatement and back pay. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the Attorney General appealed to the Appellate Court and included in the assignment of errors that:

'The court erred in overruling appellant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, both subject matter and personal.'

On February 19, 1968, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 233 N.E.2d 798. The Attorney General has filed a petition to transfer with this court. We grant transfer and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The respondent apparently followed the procedural provisions of Ind.Ann.Stat. § 60--1350 (1961 Repl.) and sought a trial de novo on his dismissal. The Appellate Court held that Ind.Ann.Stat. § 60--1350 (1961 Repl.) provided a procedure for court review from adjudications before the Indiana State Personnel Board and that this statute had not been repealed by the Administrative Adjudication and Court Review Act. We agree with the Attorney General that the Administrative Adjudication and Court Review Act superseded this statute and provided a new and exclusive procedure for appealing from decisions of the Indiana State Personnel Board.

The expressed intent of the Administrative Adjudication Act is 'to establish a uniform method of court review of all * * * administrative adjudication.' Ind.Ann.Stat. § 63--3001 (1961 Repl.) In part to accomplish this intent, the Act provides: 'All general or special laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby specifically repealed * * *' Ind.Ann.Stat. § 63--3028 (1961 Repl.) Interpreting this language literally, it would appear that any statute which...