People ex rel. Wiechern v. Smykal
| Decision Date | 19 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 46867 |
| Citation | 12 Ill.App.2d 398,139 N.E.2d 839 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois ex rel. James K. WIECHERN, Appellee, v. Richard SMYKAL, Acting Commissioner of the Department of Buildings, City of Chicago; Stephen E. Hurley, President, Albert W. Williams and John J. Ahern, Members of and constituting the Civil Service Commission of the City of Chicago; James H. Dillard, Comptroller of the City of Chicago; and David L. Hartigan, Acting Treasurer of the City of Chicago, Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
John C. Melaniphy, Corp. Counsel, Chicago (L. Louis Karton, Sydney R. Drebin, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.
Michael F. Ryan, Chicago (Richard F. McPartlin, Jr., Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
This is a mandamus proceeding by a former employee of the building department of the City of Chicago who was discharged during his probationary period. He asked that the court declare his discharge illegal, and that it order his reinstatement and reimbursement of alleged lost salary.
The complaint allaged that plaintiff took and successfully passed the civil service examination for the position of building inspector of the City of Chicago; that thereafter, on September 16, 1954 he was appointed to the position, entered upon the performance of his duties on that date, and continued therein up to and including February 5, 1955; that on the latter date he received a letter from the acting commissioner of the department of buildings of the City of Chicago, dated February 4, 1955, stating that his services as a building inspector were terminated, effective February 4, 1955, because plaintiff had 'made false and misleading statements' in his application for building inspector; that he performed his duties to the complete satisfaction of his superiors and was guilty of no matter, cause or thing showing inefficiency or incapacity in the performance thereof; that the records of the civil service commission disclose that on February 4, 1955 the acting commissioner of the department of buildings addressed a letter to the president of the civil service commission stating that effective February 4, 1955 he was terminating the services of the plaintiff as a probationary civil service building inspector for the reason that the civil service rating sheets filed in the civil service examination, taken on May 22, 1954, contained false and misleading information as to education; that on February 4, 1955 the civil service commission addressed a letter to the acting commissioner of the department of buildings stating that on that date the commission had entered an order granting authority for the discharge of plaintiff, and that the minutes of the commission further indicated that authority was granted for his discharge on that date; that in December 1954 he had been notified to appear at the offices of the civil service commission for the purpose of reviewing the experience rating form submitted by him in the original entrance examination for the position of building inspector; that he had appeared at the time and place requested and was questioned relative to his attendance at De La Salle High School and at the Illinois Institute of Technology; that he submitted diplomas attesting his attendance at and graduation from said schools; that attendance at or graduation from a high school, college or technical school was not a qualification for eligibility to participate in the examination for building inspector, and that he at no time had made any false statements concerning his education. In his complaint he quoted from section 10 of the Cities Civil Service Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, ch. 24 1/2, par. 48) and section 5 of rule IV of the civil service commission, and alleged that the purpose of the probationary period provided for in the statute and the rules is to afford a department head an opportunity to observe the appointee in the actual performance of his duties so as to determine whether he can adequately perform such duties; that under the statute and the rules, the power of removal during probation is vested in the head of the department, subject to the prior approval of the civil service commission in the manner set forth in its rules; that the commission is not vested with the power of removal during the probationary period, and has no power to order the removal of a probationary appointee; and that during probation the jurisdiction of the civil service commission is limited under the statute and the rules to consenting to or approving a request for the discharge of a probationary appointee voluntarily made by the head of the department in which the appointee is working. He alleged, on information and belief, that he was not voluntarily discharged by the acting commissioner of the department of buildings but that the acting commissioner was ordered and directed by the civil service commission to discharge him; and that the commission was without warrant, authority or jurisdiction to direct him to report for any interviews, and was without authority to subvert the provisions of the statute by usurping the functions of the head of the department of buildings in directing the discharge of plaintiff during his probationary period; and additionally he charged that his dismissal was arranged and predetermined by Stephen E. Hurley, then president of the civil service commission.
It was further alleged that the purported reason for discharge assigned by the acting commissioner of the department of buildings in his letter of discharge to plaintiff was different from the purported reason for discharge set forth in the letter to the civil service commission under the same date; that by reason thereof there was no legal consent given by the civil service commission to the discharge of the plaintiff because there was no meeting of the minds between the acting commissioner and members of the civil service commission as to the reason for plaintiff's discharge; that it appears from the letter to the commission that the acting commissioner of the department of buildings did not request the prior approval of the commission but merely informed the commission that he was terminating the appointment of the employee, and that by reason thereof the action of the commissioner was premature, void, illegal and of no force and effect. There were further allegations in the complaint pertaining to plaintiff's right to reimbursement for loss of salary.
Defendants filed their motion to strike the complaint and dismiss...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rose v. Civil Service Commission, Gen. No. 47029
...of this statute. Fish v. McGann, 205 Ill. 179, 68 N.E. 761; Kenyon v. City of Chicago, 135 Ill.App. 227; People ex rel. Wiechern v. Smykal, 12 Ill.App.2d 398, 139 N.E.2d 839; People ex rel. Heffernan v. Smykal, 13 Ill.App.2d 342, 142 N.E.2d 133. In Fish v. McGann, supra, the conclusion of t......
-
Alberty v. Daniel
...is not entitled to a hearing before the Commission upon the alleged real reason for his discharge (People ex rel. Wiechern v. Smykal (1957), 12 Ill.App.2d 398, 139 N.E.2d 839), it is established that a probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing with the Commission's consent, ......
-
People ex rel. Krich v. Hurley
...materiality of a false representation, in the sense of significance to qualification, was brushed aside in People ex rel. Witechern v. Smykal, 12 Ill.App.2d 398, 139 N.E.2d 839, where the relator's discharge was during the probationary The application filed by relator here provided: 'Peoof ......
-
People ex rel. Charles v. Telford
...require before giving assent to as serious a matter as the discharge of a probationary patrolman.' In People ex rel. Wiechern v. Smykal (1956), 12 Ill.App.2d 398, 139 N.E.2d 839, the court found that the probationary employee appeared before the Commission and its authorization to discharge......