Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TOWNSHIP DARBY v. WILLIAM A. MCCARTNEY (05/09/79)

decided: May 9, 1979.

TOWNSHIP OF DARBY, APPELLANT
v.
WILLIAM A. MCCARTNEY, JR., APPELLEE. WILLIAM A. MCCARTNEY, JR., APPELLANT V. TOWNSHIP OF DARBY, APPELLEE



Appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County in case of William A. McCartney, Jr. v. Township of Darby, No. 17108-76.

COUNSEL

Edward A. Savastion, Solicitor, for Township of Darby.

Michael A. Paul, with him Richard, Brian, DiSanti & Hamilton, for William A. McCartney, Jr.

Judges Mencer, Blatt and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 531]

The Civil Service Commission of the Township of Darby sustained the removal of police officer McCartney. On appeal, the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas reversed because of irregularities in the procedure followed under The First Class Township Code,*fn1 and issued an order reinstating him, effective 31 days after the date of the order. The township

[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 532]

    appealed the finding of procedural irregularities and officer McCartney appealed the court's refusal to reverse the Commission completely and reinstate him with back pay from the date of his removal.

The appeal was decided on the basis of the record before the Commission. After our own review of the record before the Commission, we find supportable the following findings and conclusions of the court below:

[A]ppellant police officer . . . charges a violation of Section 901 of the Police Civil Service Commission Rules for Darby Township, which section provides as follows:

'901. Procedure. Whenever any police ofcer in a township is suspended, removed or reduced in rank, the specific charges warranting each such action shall be stated in writing by the appointing authority. The charges shall be stated clearly and in sufficient detail to enable the person accused to understand the charges made against him and to answer them. As soon as practicable, the statement of charges shall be filed in duplicate with the Commission and within five calendar days of such filing the original copy of the statement of charges shall be delivered to the person accused, either by personal service or by certified or registered mail.'

A violation of The First Class Township Code is also alleged specifically to be found in 53 P.S. 55644*fn2 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.