Lassner v. Civil Service Commission
| Citation | 493 P.2d 1087,177 Colo. 257 |
| Decision Date | 14 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 24906,24906 |
| Parties | Rudolf LASSNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION of the State of Colorado, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
John D. MacFarlane, Pueblo, for plaintiff-appellant.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard D. Robb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants-appellees.
Appellant, Lassner, was chief psychologist for the mental retardation center of the Colorado State Hospital until November 10, 1969, when he was terminated by the hospital's director of personnel--appellee--Reynolds. The reasons given for his dismissal were (1) an unsatisfactory job performance rating and rerating (Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations XIII--B--2); (2) violation or failure to comply with agency rules (Civil Service Rules and Regulations XI--C--2(a)); and (3) the good of the service (Civil Service Rules and Regulations XI--C--2(s)). On appeal to Civil Service Commission the dismissal was affirmed. Thereafter review was had in the district court pursuant to 1969 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 3--16--5. A judgment upholding the Commission was entered there and the legality of the discharge is challenged here.
Appellant's first argument is the Colo.Const. art. XII, § 13, requires a hearing Prior to a discharge of an employee subject to civil service regulation. We do not reach that constitutional question, however, because disposition of the appeal is determined upon another ground. See Murray v. Commissioners, 67 Colo. 14, 185 P. 262 (1919).
The second issue raised by appellant involves the extent of an appellate court's power in reviewing the evidence presented at an administrative hearing. Under section 3--16--5(7), Supra, the reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action '(i)f it finds that the * * * action is * * * unsupported by substantial evidence when the record is considered as a whole * * *.' We have not had occasion to construe this language heretofore. However, where the natural significance of a clause is plain and unambiguous and involves no absurdity, construction is unnecessary. See Civil Serv. Emp. v. Love, 167 Colo. 436, 448 P.2d 624 (1968).
In the instant case, it is clear that the lower court did not review the proceeding before the commission in the manner required. The court stated that 'in at least (certain) particulars, the findings and order of the commission (were) sustained by competent evidence * * *.' The court then detailed certain portions of the testimony as supporting the commission's findings. Prior to an amendment of the Colorado Administrative Code in 1969, section 3--16--5, Supra, reviewing courts were required to uphold an administrative determination unless the result was 'unsupported by the evidence.' That language was changed in 1969 and the new section requires the agency action to be supportable by substantial evidence when the record is considered as a whole. We consider the significant change to mean that if there is only Some evidence in Some particulars, it is insufficient to justify affirmance of the discharge of a civil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Colorado State Dept. of Personnel, 86SA61
...for determination of whether that agency erred in upholding the Director's salary recommendations, see, e.g., Lassner v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 177 Colo. 257, 493 P.2d 1087 (1972) (where review in lower court is limited to record before administrative agency, appellate court is in as good a po......
-
Stiens v. Fire and Police Pension Ass'n
...a clause is unambiguous, construction is unnecessary. For an expression of that general rule, see, e.g., Lassner v. Civil Service Commission, 177 Colo. 257, 493 P.2d 1087 (1972). This is because otherwise severability clauses might work to nullify the legislative intent embodied in the rema......
-
Lawley v. Department of Higher Educ.
...whether substantial evidence exists on the record to support the conclusions of the agency. Cf. Lassner v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 177 Colo. 257, 259, 493 P.2d 1087, 1088-89 (1972) (construing predecessor statute delineating the extent of appellate court's power in reviewing evidence presented ......
-
Home Builders Ass'n of Metropolitan Denver v. Public Utilities Com'n of State of Colo.
...decision." Ross v. Fire and Police Pension Association, 713 P.2d 1304, 1308 (Colo.1986) (quoting Lassner v. Civil Service Commission, 177 Colo. 257, 259, 493 P.2d 1087, 1089 (1972) (emphasis in original) ). Our review of the record satisfies us that there was not substantial evidence to sup......
-
Discovery and Judicial Review in State Administrative Practice
...474 P.2d 156, 157 (1970). 75. Bennett v. Price, 167 Colo. 168,172-173, 446 P.2d 419, 421 (1968). 76. Lassner v. Civil Service Commission, 177 Colo. 257, 259, 493 P.2d 1087, 1088-89 (1972). 77. Supra, note 21 at 652. 78. Id. 79. See, e.g., Shoenberg Farms v. People ex rel. Swisher, 166 Colo.......