Parr v. Severson
| Decision Date | 16 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | 92. |
| Citation | 182 A. 595,169 Md. 647 |
| Parties | PARR, CITY BUILDINGS ENGINEER, ET AL. v. SEVERSON. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City; Eli Frank Judge.
Mandamus proceeding by Charles P. Severson to compel William A. Parr Buildings Engineer of the City of Baltimore, and others, to reinstate petitioner in the classified city service. From an order directing issuance of the writ, defendants appeal.
Order reversed, and petition dismissed.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, MITCHELL SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.
Allen A. Davis, of Baltimore (R. E. Lee Marshall, City Sol., of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.
O Bowie Duckett, Jr., and Hall Hammond, both of Baltimore (Hargest, Le Viness, Duckett & McGlannan, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
By a writ of mandamus, the buildings engineer and the city service commission of Baltimore City have been commanded to reinstate in the classified city service Charles P. Severson, petitioner for the writ, who had been discharged, and to reenter his name on the official roster of employment in the proper order of his seniority; and the appeal is from that order. In the trial court, the hearing on the petition was had before the judge sitting without a jury. Strott v. Broening, 160 Md. 560, 570, 154 A. 45; Pearson v. Murray (Md.) 182 A. 590.
The petitioner had been employed since 1924 as a building inspector. Whatever his conduct and the character of his work in the earlier years of his employment, later, under the respondent Parr, the buildings engineer and head of the department who took office in 1931, he appeared neglectful of his work, untruthful in his reports of work done, and antagonistic to his superior. His duties required him to visit a number of buildings in a prescribed district of the city each day. But early in 1932 he was discovered to be reporting as many as thirty-four visits on days on which he had made one or none at all. He disregarded an order to discontinue unnecessary use of a city automobile for the sake of economy, telling his superior that he understood his business and would work his district as he liked. Ordered to assist the head of the bureau of minor privileges, he put off particular orders from that official and gave no co-operation. And he speaks in his testimony of having to "call down" his superior for speaking to him too loud and roughly. These illustrations of conduct and attitude, together with those of later utterances, show in our opinion the existence of ground for concluding that the habitual command and obedience required for efficiency in the employment was not to be looked for with relation to the petitioner, that proper performance of his duties could not be expected, and that his retention in the employment was contrary to the good of the city government.
On April 2, 1932, he was discharged by Parr. The trial court expressed the opinion that there was ample ground for the discharge. We find that Severson then applied to the mayor, an acquaintance of many years, and the mayor arranged a conference at which, besides himself, Parr, Severson, and the chief engineer, Bernard L. Crozier, were present. On learning that Severson would reach sixty years of age on February 21, 1933, at which age a city employee is entitled to retire on a retirement allowance, the mayor suggested that Parr reinstate Severson, but the latter declined to do so under any circumstances, characterizing the petitioner as incompetent and inefficient and a disorganizer. The three officials then arranged that Parr should alter the discharge of Severson to a suspension of thirty days, and that the chief engineer, Mr. Crozier, should provide employment in another department until the petitioner should reach full sixty years. The arrangement was explained to Severson, and he acquiesced in it. It was carried out by a suspension and his temporary transfer to another department.
On November 22, 1932, his retirement was recommended by a personnel survey commission appointed to relieve the city departments of inefficient men, but as he was not eligible for retirement until three months later he asked the mayor to try to find a way to keep him on until March 1, 1933. Parr by letter of January 30, 1933, notified Severson that he had been retired, the retirement to become effective on February 1st. But on the next day the petitioner again asked the mayor's intercession. "I don't feel," he wrote, This was arranged by the mayor.
On February 11, the city service commission, in reply to an application of the petitioner's that his...
To continue reading
Request your trial