State v. Boyington

• Decision Date: 05 April 1920
• Docket Number: 15682.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WOLCOTT v. BOYINGTON et al.

188 P. 777

110 Wash. 622

STATE ex rel. WOLCOTT v. BOYINGTON et al.

No. 15682.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 5, 1920

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; D. W. Hurn, Judge.

Certiorari by the State, on the relation of C. M. Wolcott, against C.J Boyington and others, to review a decision of the civil service commission of the city of Spokane. From an adverse judgment, the relator appeals. Affirmed.

W. C. Donovan and Geo. H. Armitage, both of Spokane, for appellant.

J. M Geraghty and Alex M. Winston, both of Spokane, for respondents.

PARKER J.

This was a certiorari proceeding in the superior court for Spokane county, wherein relator sought review and reversal of a decision of the civil service commission of the city of Spokane, dismissing him from his position as a fireman in the fire department of that city, which position he had held as a civil service employé. A hearing in the superior court upon the record of the hearing had before the civil service commission resulted in a judgment of that court dismissing the proceedings with prejudice, leaving the decision of the civil service commission undisturbed. From this disposition of the cause in the superior court, relator has appealed to this court.

Counsel for relator, contending that he was unlawfully dismissed from the service of the city, invoke the civil service provisions of the city charter found in section 55 thereof, reading as follows:

'Any employé may be suspended by the head of the department under which he is employed and thereupon his salary shall cease. The officer making the order shall forthwith file with the civil service commission a statement of the suspension and the reasons therefor. Within ten days after his suspension the employé so suspended may file an appeal with the civil service commission, who shall hold an inquiry within ten days after the filing of the appeal and shall make decision within ten days after the hearing whether the employé shall be dismissed or reinstated in his employment. All such hearings shall be public. The decision of the commission shall be final.'

There is no other provision of the charter limiting the power of the civil service commission, or the head of the department in which relator was employed, touching the dismissal of appellant from the service of the city.

On April 18, 1918, the city's commissioner of public safety, he being the head of the department in which relator was employed, made an order in writing, filing the same with the civil service commission, suspending relator from the service of the city, which order reads as follows:

'It having been brought to the attention of the commissioner of public safety that C. M. Wolcott, employed as a fireman in the fire department, has been guilty of conduct in violation of the rules of the department and detrimental to the public service; and it appearing to the said commissioner of public safety, after a full and impartial investigation of said matter, that the said C. M. Wolcott, on or about the 17th day of April, A. D. 1918, and at divers other times prior to said date, at fire station No. 5 and elsewhere, and during the time he was engaged in active duty under his said employment, did prepare and write a petition to the commissioner of public safety, requesting and demanding that the said commissioner of public safety discharge from his position, as chief of the fire department, A. L. Weeks, said discharge to become effective not later than May 1, 1918; that said Wolcott circulated said petition for signatures among his fellow members of the fire department, and solicited signatures from firemen to the same, and urged them to join him in making such demand upon the commissioner of public safety;

'And it further appearing to the said commissioner of public safety that said conduct was in violation of the rules of the department and detrimental to the public service, and that for the reasons above stated the said C. M. Wolcott should be discharged from his said employment, with loss of salary, subject to an appeal to the civil service commission:

'Now, therefore, by reason of the premises, it is hereby ordered that the said C. M. Wolcott be, and he is hereby, suspended from his said employment; that his salary cease from this date, and that unless he appeals from this order to said commission, within ten days from the date hereof, the reason for his suspension herein stated may be taken as confessed by said commission, and his absolute discharge by it ordered.'

Thereafter, in due time, relator filed his appeal with the civil service commission, seeking reinstatement. Thereafter, on April 30, 1918, a hearing was had before the civil service commission, whereat evidence was introduced in support and in rebuttal of the charges so made against relator; he being present and afforded ample opportunity to be heard. That hearing resulted in the decision by the civil service commission here in question, which was sustained by the superior court by dismissal of the certiorari proceeding, which judgment of the superior court is in turn here for review upon the appeal of relator.

The contentions here made in behalf of appellant, in their last analysis, amount to little else than that the civil service commission wrongly decided the case against appellant upon the merits, and that the superior court should, for that reason, have reversed the decision of the civil service commission. That is, that the evidence taken before the civil service commission failed to sustain its decision, and that the cause assigned for appellant's suspension and dismissal was in no event, even if proven, such as to warrant his dismissal from the service of the city. Now, while the subject of the dismissal of civil service employés under a charter provision of the nature here in question is, in a limited sense, a matter of judicial cognizance in the courts the inquiry which the courts are permitted to make relative thereto can in no event extend to the merits, generally speaking, of a case heard and decided by the civil service commission. The reason is that the employé would not, upon his dismissal, have any right of redress...