Yates v. Civil Service Commission, 13022

• Decision Date: 02 February 1971
• Docket Number: No. 13022,13022
• Citation: 154 W.Va. 696,178 S.E.2d 798
• Parties: John YATES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION of West Virginia, Donald E. Ryder, et al., Commissioners, Etc., Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner of West Virginia.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Page 798

178 S.E.2d 798

154 W.Va. 696

John YATES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION of West Virginia, Donald E. Ryder,

et al., Commissioners, Etc., Alcohol Beverage

Control Commissioner of West Virginia.

No. 13022.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted Jan. 13, 1971.

Decided Feb. 2, 1971.

Syllabus by the Court

1. When an employee covered by civil service is discharged for cause such cause must be shown to have existed at the time of the dismissal.

2. An employee covered by civil service may be discharged for good cause but the reasons therefor must be given to him at the time his employment is so terminated and cannot be supplied for the first time at a civil service hearing on his appeal from such discharge.

3. 'A final order of the Civil Service Commission, based upon findings not supported by the evidence, upon findings contrary to the evidence, or upon a mistake of law, will be reversed and set aside by this Court upon review.' Syllabus, Guine v. Civil Service Commission, 149 W.Va. 461 (141 S.E.2d 364).

Leo Catsonis, Charleston, for appellant.

Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., Atty. Gen., Dennis R. Vaughan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for appellees.

CAPLAN, President.

This is an appeal by John Yates from an order of the Civil Service Commission wherein the commission held that the appellant was not entitled to reinstatement to his former position. After the appeal was granted the appellant asked leave to move to reverse and such leave was allowed. The case is now before us on a motion to reverse the order of the Civil Service Commission.

John Yates became an employee of the West Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner on May 1, 1964. He served that employer in several capacities, his last position being that of a cashier in the state liquor store in Lewisburg. As a cashier he was a covered employee in the state civil service system.

While so employed, Mr. Yates, on the night of October 31, 1969, received a telephone call from his supervisor, Sam Mason, who told him that he was discharged from his position with the commissioner. That there was no letter of dismissal nor any reasons offered for his dismissal is not disputed in the record. In fact, one of the findings of the Civil Service Commission was that the employee 'was dismissed without being given reasons in writing.'

In July 1969 the appellant took a civil service examination but did not learn the results thereof until approximately July 10, 1970, several months subsequent to his discharge by the Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner. At that time Mr. Yates' counsel told him that he had learned from the Director of Personnel of the Civil Service Commission that he had failed the examination. There is no showing in the record of this case that the employer had any knowledge of the results of such examination. Clearly the employer did not know that Yates had failed at the time of his dismissal.

On May 28, 1970 the appellant, through his counsel, sought an appeal from the dismissal of October 31, 1969. In the letter seeking such appeal the commission was requested to advise the appellant of the grounds of dismissal as required by its rules and regulations. Pursuant thereto a hearing was held before the Civil Service Commission on August 10, 1970, on which date the commission rendered its decision. Therein it found that the 'employee was dismissed without being given reasons in writing.' A second finding was that the employee failed the qualifying examination. Its decision was 'The employee is not entitled to reinstatement by reason of his failing the qualifying examination.' It is from this decision that the appellant prosecutes this appeal.

It is the contention of the appellant that his discharge by the Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner was illegal for the reason that the commissioner failed to present him with the reasons for such discharge, as specifically required by Code, 1931, 29--6--8(11), as amended. The appellees, on the other hand, take the position that although no reasons were given for Yates' discharge, he nonetheless is not entitled to reinstatement because of his failure to pass the qualifying examination.

We are confronted on this appeal, not with the mere issue of whether the dismissal of Yates was legal or illegal, but with the further consideration of whether his failure to pass the qualifying examination, knowledge of which was obtained after the dismissal, now precludes his reinstatement. As herein noted, no reasons were stated for Yates' dismissal at the time thereof. By statute and by the decisions of this Court, it is well established that good cause must exist for the dismissal of an employee in the classified service and that such good cause must be shown to have existed at the time of the dismissal. In the absence thereof such dismissal is illegal and cannot stand. See Guine...