In re Doyle, 76.

• Decision Date: 08 October 1945
• Docket Number: No. 76.,76.
• Citation: 20 N.W.2d 161,312 Mich. 205
• Parties: In re DOYLE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

312 Mich. 205

20 N.W.2d 161

In re DOYLE.

No. 76.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 8, 1945.

Appeal from Civil Service Board of Grand Rapids.

Proceedings in the matter of the application of Leo M. Doyle for reinstatement in the police department of the city of Grand Rapids. To review an order of the civil service board of the city of Grand Rapids reinstating the petitioner, the city appeals in the nature of certiorari.

Affirmed.

Before the Entire Bench.

Ganson Taggart, Merle C. Baker, and John F. Livingston, all of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

Fred P. Geib, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.

SHARPE, Justice.

The city of Grand Rapids appeals in the nature of certiorari from the findings of the civil service board of the city of Grand Rapids wherein said board had ordered the reinstatement of Leo M. Doyle, a discharged lieutenant of police.

Leo M. Doyle was discharged from the Grand Rapids police department in December 1942 by the then city manager, Peter A. Kammeraad. The nature of the misconduct alleged to have occurred on December 8, 1942, which resulted in Doyle's discharge, appears in Doyle v. Kammeraad, 310 Mich. 233, 17 N.W.2d 165, 169. The above action was for damages against the city of Grand Rapids and certain public officers of the city. We there said: ‘The order dismissing the suit is affirmed, but it must be without prejudice to plaintiff's right to a hearing in accordance with the city charter as construed in the Babcock Case, [Babcock v. Foley, 308 Mich. 412, 14 N.W.2d 48], and without prejudice to plaintiff's right, if any, to reinstatement, or for salary if it be found he was wrongfully discharged from his position.’

On October 10, 1944, the civil service board amended Rule 18, § 2, of its Rules and Regulations to provide that hearing before it on appeals taken by discharged employees shall be de novo; that the finding of any department head, city manager, board or tribunal on the correctness of any charge shall not be admissible or be considered by it; and that when an appeal is filed with the board, the city manager shall file with the board duplicate copies of the original charges together with amendments thereto, a copy of which charges as amended shall be served by the board upon the employee and an opportunity given him to reply.

On October 23, 1944, the city manager, Walter Sack, pursuant to said amended rule served upon the civil service board duplicate copies of the original and amended charges. On the same day the secretary of the board mailed copies thereof to Doyle.

The amended charges, in addition to containing the alleged facts pertaining to the conduct of Schaab and Doyle on the night of December 8, 1942, referred to in the Kammeraad case, supra, contained specific charges pertaining to Doyle kicking one Pearl Harris while finger-printing her in September 1941 and also charges by Ruth Sinz relative to Doyle making obscene remarks to her about her pregnant condition. On November 13, 1944, Doyle filed with the civil service board an answer to the original and amended charges; and on the following day filed a motion to be reinstated and to vacate the charges against him.

A hearing de novo on the original and amended charges was had in January 1945 before the civil service board. At the inception of the hearing, the right of Robert M. Doyle, a first cousin of Leo M. Doyle, and the right of John E. VandenBerg, a client of the attorney representing Leo M. Doyle, to sit as members of the civil service board was challenged.

On January 22, 1945, the cvil service board issued the following written findings:

‘(a) Pearl Harris

This incident happened in 1941, over a year before the discharge was given out by Peter Kammeraad, the then City Manager. At the time of this incident no drastic action was taken by the officials of the City or Police Department other than the conference Mr. Doyle had with his superiors. We therefore feel that this charge is not worthy of consideration.

‘(b) Ruth Sinz

In the Ruth Sinz testimony the fact was brought out that Ruth Sinz told her story to the higher authorities and again nothing was done to discharge Mr. Leo M. Doyle at that time and no charges placed against him. We are of the opinion that this charge cannot be used against Mr. Doyle at this time.

‘(c) Joseph Schaab

This charge was the crux of the issues and its proof rested on the point as to who was telling the truth. The incredible story and the fact that no investigation was ever made regarding it and the insufficiency of the evidence, leaves no other alternative other than to find it wanting in proof. * * *

‘Conclusion:

In summation, we must of necessity find the charges deficient in proof and lacking of any basis for discharge. It is our opinion that Leo M. Doyle be reinstead (reinstated) to the position which he formerly held in the Grand Rapids Police Department, as of January 19, 1945, with back pay for time while not employed by any person.'

The city of Grand Rapids, upon leave being granted, appeals and urges:

‘(1) That Robert M. Doyle, being a first cousin of Leo M. Doyle, whose appeal was being heard, was disqualified to sit as a member of the Board hearing those charges because of that relationship and thereby made the Board's action illegal and void.

‘(2) That John E. VandenBerg, being a past and present client of Fred P. Geib, the attorney for Leo M. Doyle, was disqualified, because of that professional relationship, to sit as a member of said Board hearing the charges against Leo M. Doyle, and thereby made said Board's action illegal and void.

‘(3) That the Civil Service Board in voting to allow Messrs. Doyle and Vanden-Berg to sit, constituted itself an illegal, quasi-judicial body and...