Madden v. City of Stockton

PEEK, J. This is an appeal by petitioner from an order of the superior court denying his petition for a writ of mandate by which he sought to review the action of the defendant Civil Service Commission of the City of Stockton, upholding his discharge from his civil service position as sergeant of the Stockton Police Department.

Pursuant to certain provisions of the city charter, the chief of police recommended to the city manager that the petitioner be discharged. In response thereto the city manager, likewise in accordance with said charter provisions, discharged the petitioner. The letter of discharge set forth three separate charges; however, since it appears that the first charge is amply sufficient to sustain the action of the commission, and since the third charge was dismissed, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the second.

The provisions of the city charter pertinent to the questions raised in this appeal provide in part that the tenure of anyone holding a civil service position “. . . shall be only during good behavior, and any such person may be . . . discharged, . . . for ... (b) any wilful failure on the part of the employee to prop[895]erly conduct himself ...” (Art. XXXII, § 16.) By section 19 of that same article, it is provided in part that no civil service employee ‘ ‘. .. shall be removed or discharged except for cause ...” and then only upon the written accusation of the appointing officer and the written recommendation of the chief of the department in which the person was employed. It is further provided that any person so discharged may, within the time therein specified, file a written demand for investigation. The commission shall thereupon conduct such investigation and it “. . . shall be confined to the determination of the question of whether such removal or discharge was or was not made for political or religious reasons and was or was not made in good faith for cause. ’ ’

Following his discharge the petitioner filed a request for an investigation, and thereafter public hearings were held by the commission at which numerous witnesses testified. At the conclusion of the hearings the commission adopted findings of fact wherein it found that the discharge of petitioner was not made for political or religious reasons and was made in good faith and for cause. Petitioner then filed his petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court which was denied and this appeal followed.

The evidence concerning the incident charged in the first offense related to the actions of petitioner while in the company of other police officers at a public restaurant in Stockton. The officers, including the petitioner, had gone to the restaurant to discuss police matters, and while doing so were having coffee. The petitioner absented himself from the booth where they were sitting, and during his absence one of the officers placed some salt in his cup. Upon his return he tasted some of the coffee, became quite agitated, drew his revolver, cocked and held it within a few inches of the head of the officer whom he suspected of having committed the act and demanded that he drink the salted coffee.