Grasse v. Snyder, 10810.
| Decision Date | 27 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 10810.,10810. |
| Citation | 89 US App. DC 352,192 F.2d 35 |
| Parties | GRASSE v. SNYDER, Secretary of the Treasury. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Frank W. Gaines, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom C. Booker Powell and Coates Lear, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Joseph Kovner, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty. and Marvin C. Taylor and Joseph B. McGrath, Attorneys, Department of Justice, all of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty. and Edward H. Hickey, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellee.
Before CLARK and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges, and LEDERLE, District Judge, sitting by designation.
We are here reviewing the dismissal of a complaint filed by a Special Investigator, Alcohol Tax Unit, Bureau of Internal Revenue, assailing the legality of his discharge from Government service on October 7, 1944, on charges of intoxication, excessive use of intoxicants, disorderly conduct, conduct unbecoming a Federal officer and unsatisfactory service. The complaint was filed in the District Court sixteen months after plaintiff-appellant was notified that his discharge had been sustained by the Board of Appeals and Review, United States Civil Service Commission. The complaint names the Secretary of the Treasury as sole defendant and prays for a mandatory injunction requiring the Secretary to restore plaintiff to his former position or one of equal or higher grade and salary, with reimbursement for all salary that he might have earned in such position between the time of discharge and that of reinstatement.
Although plaintiff attacks practically every phase of the removal procedure and the numerous personalities connected therewith, his main reliance pivots around his claim that he is a veteran preference eligible and that in the discharge proceedings formally initiated June 28, 1944, culminating in his severance on October 7, 1944, he was not granted the full 30-day notice provided for in the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944,1 signed by the President on June 27, 1944, the day preceding the lodging of formal charges against him. He also emphasizes the fact that during his original discharge proceedings, it was not disclosed that he was a veteran preference eligible within the meaning of such Act, as holder of the Yangtze Medal for service with the Marine Corps in 1927. He advised the Civil Service Commission of such military service two years after his severance, when he asked for and received leave to take a delayed appeal.
Detailed charges and specifications were served upon appellant over three months prior to his discharge, by letter dated June 28, 1944. In conformity with Civil Service Regulations effective up to the day preceding this letter, plaintiff was given ten days to reply to the charges. He requested a twenty-eight day period, to July 26, 1944, for replying, which extension was granted him. By letter dated July 26, 1944, he replied to such charges. He did not ask for more time to answer. His reply was considered unsatisfactory, and he was notified of his removal from service by letter of September 26, 1944, effective October 7, 1944, at the expiration of his annual leave. His active duty status ended and his annual leave began on September 27, 1944.
During December of 1944, plaintiff applied to the Commission for a position in another branch of the service. In response to a question as to prior Civil Service history, plaintiff wrote, "Do not desire reinstatement with Alcohol Tax Unit."
Two years later, by letter of June 20, 1946, plaintiff notified the Civil Service Commission that he was entitled to veteran's preference and that he desired to file an appeal from his discharge. Although Commission Regulations provided for the filing of an appeal generally within thirty days after adverse agency action, the Commission permitted plaintiff to file a delayed appeal.
On August 28, 1946, The Seventh Regional Office of the Civil Service Commission held a hearing upon his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baskin v. Tennessee Valley Authority
...(11 months' delay); Nicholas v. United States, 257 U.S. 71, 42 S.Ct. 7, 66 L.Ed. 133 (1921) (3 years' delay); Grasse v. Snyder, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 352, 192 F.2d 35 (1951) (16 months' delay); Caswell v. Morgenthau, 69 App.D.C. 15, 98 F.2d 296, cert. denied, 305 U.S. 596, 59 S.Ct. 81, 83 L.Ed. 3......
-
Powell v. Zuckert
...(1938) (eighteen months unexcused delay). The sixteen-month, inadequately explained delay in filing a lawsuit in Grasse v. Snyder, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 352, 192 F.2d 35 (1951), was aggravated by a prior two-year delay by plaintiff in appealing his discharge to the Civil Service Commission. 2 Leg......
-
Chiriaco v. United States
...105 U.S.App.D.C. 140, 265 F.2d 124, 125, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 841, 80 S.Ct. 93, 4 L.Ed.2d 80 (1959); Grasse v. Snyder, 89 U.S.App. D.C. 352, 192 F.2d 35, 37 (1951). 7. Plaintiff's delay of 24 months between December 7, 1960, when his administrative remedies in the termination action were ......
-
Baxter v. Pace, 10817.
...of the Secretary was changed to Secretary of the Army. 4 Arant v. Lane, 249 U.S. 367, 372, 39 S.Ct. 293, 63 L.Ed. 650; Grasse v. Snyder, 89 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 192 F.2d 35 (decided September 27, 5 That judgment in fact appears to be valid and subsisting, and not subject to collateral attack. ......