City of York v. Dinges

• Decision Date: 15 December 1975
• Parties: CITY OF YORK v. Willard C. DINGES, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 776

345 A.2d 776

21 Pa.Cmwlth. 322

CITY OF YORK v. Willard C. DINGES, Appellant.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 11, 1975.

Decided Oct. 8, 1975.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Dec. 15, 1975.

Samuel K. Gates, York, for appellant.

John W. Thompson, Edward C. Roberts, York, for appellee.

Before BOWMAN, President Judge, and KRAMER and MENCER, JJ.

MENCER, Judge.

Willard C. Dinges (Dinges) was a member of the Police Department of the City of York with the rank of patrolman. While so employed he and other police officers accepted gratuities from tow truck operators. When this conduct became known, certain investigations followed, and Dinges was called to testify before the Pennsylvania Crime Commission. Dinges compounded his troubles by making certain false statements before the Crime Commission, and this resulted in his being charged in Dauphin County, on December 18, 1973, with the crime of perjury. ¹

On February 12, 1974, James E. Hooker, Director of Public Safety for the City of York, suspended Dinges from his duties as a patrolman. This suspension was without hearing and without the filing of charges by or on behalf of anyone representing or having authority to act for the City of York. ²

On September 10, 1974, Director of Public Safety Hooker sent a letter of reprimand to Dinges. This letter informed Dinges that accepting gratuities from tow truck operators while a city policeman was a violation of Section 18 of the Rules and Regulations of the Bureau of Police. Dinges was further advised in the letter that future acceptance of such gratuities would be grounds for dismissal.

Dinges received a subsequent letter, under date of September 23, 1974, from Mayor John D. Krout of the City of York, notifying him that City Council would hold a hearing on October 1, 1974, when it would consider his dismissal from the City of York Police Department, in accordance with the General Rules and Regulations, Sections (7.0), (10.0), and (18.0), Bureau of Police, as approved by City Council on December 2, 1969.

These three mentioned sections were set forth in the letter of September 23, 1974 as follows:

'(7.0) Conduct on the part of any member or employee of the Bureau of Police either on or off duty that shall be prejudicial to the reputation and good name thereof, shall subject the offender to disciplinary action.

'(10.0) Untruthfulness is a grave disqualification for the police service. Members and employees are required to speak the truth at all times and under all circumstances, whether under oath or otherwise . . ..

'(18.0) No member or employee of the service shall collect or attempt to collect any gratuities in any form whatever for the performance or non-performance of his sworn duties; salary, witness fees, awards, and rewards as permitted by law excepted.'

Following a hearing held on October 1, 1974 before City Council, at which Dinges was present and represented by legal counsel, the City Council, on October 15, 1974, rendered its decision to dismiss Dinges from the 'Police Force of the City of York'. City Council found that 'Willard C. Dinges did in fact violate Sections (7.0), (10.0) and (18.0) of the Rules and Regulations of the York City Police Department' and, in addition, found that Dinges 'will be unable to function and perform his duties as a police officer based on the testimony given by District Attorney Donald L. Reihart, as well as the statement made by Assistant City Solicitor Edward C. Roberts, that his (Dinges') plea of false swearing in Dauphin County Court will make any testimony he offers as a witness ineffective in court'.

Dinges appealed his discharge by City Council to the Court of Common Pleas of York County, which court heard the charges made against Dinges de novo and thereafter dismissed Dinges' appeal. This appeal followed, and we affirm the ruling of the trial court which in essence affirmed the action of the City Council of York in dismissing Dinges.

The Third Class City Code, Act of June 23, 1931, P.L. 932, Art. XLIV, § 4408, As amended, 53 P.S. § 39408, in part, provides:

'All employes subject to civil service shall be subject to suspension by the director of the department for misconduct, or violation of any law of this Commonwealth, any ordinance of the city, or regulation of the department, pending action by the city council upon the charges made against any of such employes. On hearing before the city council, where they may be represented by counsel, they may be fined or suspended for a period not exceeding thirty days with or without pay, or they may be discharged by city council, if found guilty of the charges made against them. The director of each such department may, for misconduct or violation as aforesaid, suspend any employe of such department for a period of ten days, with or without pay, without preferring charges and without a hearing of council; but no employe shall be suspended more than one time for the identical or same violation or act of misconduct. . . .

'Any civil service employe aggrieved by the action of the council in fining, suspending or discharging him shall have the right to appeal by petition to the court of common pleas within thirty days after the suspension or after receipt of written notice of such action by council which it shall be the duty of the council to give and the court shall hear the charges made against him de novo. The issue before the court shall be whether the action of the council shall be affirmed or be modified in any respect or whether the charges should be dismissed or whether the suspension made by the director shall be affirmed or rescinded.'

Dinges does not make the assertion on this appeal that he did nothing wrong or that the record does not support findings that he violated the Rules and Regulations of the City of York Police Department or...