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.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA v. FRED SALADINO (11/09/79)

decided: November 9, 1979.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF PHILADELPHIA, APPELLANT
v.
FRED SALADINO, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of Fred Saladino v. Civil Service Commission of Philadelphia, No. 2670 April Term, 1977.

COUNSEL

Application for reargument filed and denied.

Joseph P. Ryan, Assistant City Solicitor, with him James M. Penny, Jr., Deputy City Solicitor, and Sheldon L. Albert, City Solicitor, for appellant.

Alfonso Tumini, with him Armando A. Pandola, Jr., and Davidson, Aaron & Tumini, for appellee.

Judges Wilkinson, Jr., DiSalle and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr. Judge DiSalle dissents.

Author: Wilkinson

[ 47 Pa. Commw. Page 250]

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County of April 7, 1978, which reversed a Philadelphia Civil Service Commission (Commission) decision dismissing the appellee for conduct unbecoming a police officer.

Appellee had been dismissed from the Philadelphia Police Department on March 20, 1976, by the Commissioner and had appealed his dismissal to the Commission. On December 14, 1976, after a hearing at which appellee did not testify, the Commission concluded that the appellee's conduct warranted a period of suspension without pay rather than a dismissal. The

[ 47 Pa. Commw. Page 251]

    police department then was granted a rehearing for the purpose of calling the appellee as on cross-examination; and on April 1, 1977, the Commission found that in view of new evidence in that testimony the charges set forth in the original dismissal notice had been established. Accordingly, the Commission reversed its prior decision and affirmed appellee's dismissal.

At the second hearing, appellee had testified that he was the guarantor under an oral lease which he had negotiated on behalf of his son in order for the son to establish an auto repair business. The leased property was situated in an area adjacent to appellee's normal sector and was frequently patrolled by him. Appellee denied any knowledge of any illegal activity but revealed that he was regularly at or near the premises, that he participated in the handling of checks and business receipts, and that he lived in the same household with his son during a period when the enterprise was under investigation by the police department. That investigation led to the arrest of appellee's son after several stolen and illegally towed vehicles were found on the business premises.

The findings on which the Commission's conclusion of dismissal was based included the following:

4. From the foregoing described participation in the enterprise appellant knew or should have known of the illegal transactions being ...


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.