Appeal from the Order of the Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police in case of Court-Martial of Dominick Merlino, Order of March 8, 1973.
Walter W. Wilt, with him Hepford, Zimmerman & Swartz, for appellant.
J. Andrew Smyser, Deputy Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Blatt. Judge Mencer dissents.
[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 414]
Corporal Dominick Merlino, a 25 year veteran of the State Police, was accused of attempting to influence a District Justice and another State Policeman to drop traffic violation charges against a friend of Merlino's. He was charged with violating State Police Field Regulation FRI-2, Paragraph 2, Point 22B, which provides: "A member shall not intervene or interfere in any arrest or prosecution brought by other members of the force, or by any other agency or persons."
Following a hearing before a Court-Martial Board (Board), Merlino was found guilty of the charges against him and recommended for dismissal. The Commissioner of the State Police (Commissioner) accepted the recommendation and ordered Merlino's dismissal. On appeal to this Court, we remanded the record to the Commissioner so that he could fulfill the statutory requirement of reviewing the record made before the Board prior to making his decision.*fn1 The Commissioner then reviewed the record, Merlino was again dismissed and other appeal to this Court has now been brought.
There are two essential issues involved in this appeal.
Merlino first contends that the Commissioner abused his discretion by failing to reopen the hearing so as to accept testimony from a witness who had not previously appeared but who would allegedly support Merlino's testimony about the incident in question. We can find no obligation on the part of the Commissioner to grant any such additional or reopened hearing, especially in view of the fact that as we noted in Merlino, supra, Merlino had earlier waived an opportunity for a continuance so that his witness could testify.
[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 415]
Merlino's other contention is that the Rules and Regulations of the State Police which were filed on April 15, 1971, including the regulation which Merlino was accused of violating, were invalid because they were not approved by the Governor. Section 711 of the Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, as amended, 71 P.S. § 251, provides, inter alia : "The Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police shall be the head and executive officer of the Pennsylvania State Police. He shall provide, for the members of the State Police Force, suitable uniforms, arms, equipment, and, where it is deemed necessary, horses or motor vehicles, and make rules and regulations, subject to the approval of the Governor, prescribing qualifications prerequisite to, or retention of, membership in the force. . . ." (Emphasis added.) It seems clear, therefore, that, although the Legislature has delegated rule-making power to the Commissioner, it has kept a check on this power by requiring approval of such rules by the Governor before they may be effective, and the quasi-military nature of the State Police makes such a requirement understandable. The requirement of gubernatorial approval has been further recognized in § 102(2) of the Commonwealth Documents Law, Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 769, 45 P.S. § 1102(2), which defines "administrative regulation" as "any regulation except a proclamation, executive order, executive directive or other similar document promulgated by the Governor, and the term includes a regulation which may be promulgated by an agency only with the approval of the Governor." (Emphasis added.) Merlino claims that this approval by the Governor was never obtained for the set of regulations which he was accused of violating, and he would have us hold, therefore, that they were invalid. He, however, has never raised this issue previously. He did not raise it while he was being investigated, he did not raise it before the Board, he did not raise it in the prior appeal to this
[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 416]
Court and he did not raise it on the remand to the ...