Appeal from the Order of the State Civil Service Commission in case of David A. Henley v. Human Relations Commission, No. 2126.
Richard Steven Levine, for petitioner.
Sanford Kahn, General Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Mencer, DiSalle and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 39 Pa. Commw. Page 287]
David A. Henley (Petitioner) appeals to us from a State Civil Service Commission (Commission) order which sustained his suspensions and removal by the Human Relations Commission (HRC) from his position as a Human Relations Representative II, probationary status.
Petitioner was employed by the HRC in September of 1972, and on October 24 of that same year he was informed by the Commission that his status was "provisional." The Petitioner's status remained "provisional" until June 4, 1976, at which time Petitioner's status became "probationary" pursuant to the provisions of Article VI, Section 604 of the Civil Service Act (Act), Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, as amended, 71 P.S. § 741.604.*fn1 On November 15, 1976, his probationary status was extended. In fact, Petitioner never attained "regular" employee status.
[ 39 Pa. Commw. Page 288]
On November 8, 1976, Petitioner was notified by memorandum from HRC that he had been suspended for a period of three (3) days for reasons specifically set forth in that memorandum.*fn2 On November 10, 1976, Petitioner was suspended for insubordination for an additional period not to exceed twenty-seven (27) days. Petitioner appealed to the Commission from these suspension orders.
On December 2, 1976, Petitioner was informed of his removal by HRC with the notification of that action setting forth the reasons for his removal in full.*fn3 Thereafter, the Petitioner appealed from his removal and requested a hearing as provided in Section 951 of the Act, 71 P.S. § 741.951(b).*fn4
Counsel, other than Petitioner's present counsel, entered an appearance in the proceedings before the Commission on behalf of the Petitioner on December 28, 1976 but withdrew that appearance on January 13, 1977. On the following day, Petitioner was advised by the Commission that a hearing was scheduled for February 3, 1977. Notwithstanding that fact, it was
[ 39 Pa. Commw. Page 289]
not until January 28, 1977, that Petitioner acquired his present counsel. That counsel immediately contacted the Commission by telephone and requested a continuance, which request was denied. Counsel also requested 19 subpoenas duces tecum. He was advised that such subpoenas could not be issued unless the Commission was informed of the specific records being subpoenaed. When ...