Department of Corrections v. Hemphill, 50006
Decision Date | 20 February 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 50006,50006,1 |
Citation | 134 Ga.App. 65,213 S.E.2d 169 |
Parties | DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. Elton F. HEMPHILL |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Robert S. Stubbs, II, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, G. Thomas Davis, G. Stephen Parker, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellant.
Falligant, Doremus, Karsman, Kent & Toporek, Ogden Doremus, Michael C. Towers, Savannah, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Hemphill was terminated from his employment as a correctional officer at the Georgia State Prison, Reidsville, Georgia. The reason specified by the Commissioner of the State Board of Corrections was: 'Misconduct, unfitness to perform assigned duties, and conduct reflecting discredit on the department in that on or about December 6, 1973, you did without necessity or justification strike an inmate with a nightstick, thereby violating Rule 125-2-5-.03, sections (a), (b), and (c) of the Rules of the State Board of Corrections.'
A hearing was held before an officer of the State Personnel Board and the following decision by the personnel board was rendered: 'After considerable discussion of the evidence submitted in the transcript of the hearing which was held in Reidsville on March 1, 1974, it was the board's decision to uphold your appeal.'
The Department of Corrections petitioned the Superior Court of Fulton County for a writ of certiorari, the denial of which the department appeals.
The Department contends that the superior court erred in denying its petition because the personnel board made no findings of fact nor conclusions of law. Held:
In Hood v. Rice, 120 Ga.App. 691, 172 S.E.2d 170, an Atlanta school teacher was discharged and neither the Atlanta nor the State Board of Education included findings of fact nor conclusions of law in their decision to uphold the dismissal. On appeal, this court held that the Administrative Procedure Act (Ga.L.1964, pp. 338, 340; 1965, pp. 283, 284-286; Code Ann. § 3A-102) did not apply to either board and added: Hood v. Rice, 120 Ga.App. 691, 694, 172 S.E.2d 170, 173, supra. Likewise, we note that the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to the State Personnel Board. Code Ann. § 3A-102(a). And we are aware of no other statute, rule or regulation that requires the personnel board to make specific findings and conclusions.
The department contends that even if findings are not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Keramidas v. Department of Human Resources
...1975, pp. 404, 407) excepts " . . . the State Personnel Board (Merit System) . . . " from this Act. See also Dept. of Corrections v. Hemphill, 134 Ga.App. 65, 66, 213 S.E.2d 169. Did the inclusion of the wrong Act deprive the Fulton County Superior Court of the "subject-matter" so as to ren......
-
Stanford v. State
... ... Lorenzo Freeman, a narcotics detective with the Atlanta Police Department, on three separate occasions. After pleading not guilty, appellant waived ... ...
-
Duval v. Department of Human Resources
...made not by DHR but by the State Personnel Board, which is not governed by the APA. OCGA § 50-13-2 (1); Dept. of Corrections v. Hemphill, 134 Ga.App. 65, 66, 213 S.E.2d 169 (1975). Accordingly, this matter is not governed by the APA by the provisions of OCGA § 45-20-1 et seq. relating to th......
-
Allen v. State Personnel Bd., 52774
...pp. 338, 340; 1965, pp. 283, 284-286; 1975, pp. 404, 407), and Code Ann. § 3A-108 (Ga.L.1964, pp. 338, 346). See Dept. of Corrections v. Hemphill, 134 Ga.App. 65, 213 S.E.2d 169. Thus, the question for our determination is whether, after a post-termination hearing in which the matters have ......