Appeal from the Order of the State Civil Service Commission in case of State Civil Service Commission v. Richard H. Muehleisen, Appeal No. 2847.
Gary M. Lightman, Mancke & Lightman, for petitioner.
Earl R. Dryer, Deputy Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Mencer, Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail. Judge Palladino did not participate in the decision in this case.
The present petition seeks review of the State Civil Service Commission's (Commission) decision, by a letter dated December 16, 1980, denying reconsideration of its previous order removing Richard H. Muehleisen (Petitioner) from his position as an enforcement officer for the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for participation in political activities.
The factual background underlying this case as it is now presented to us is an unfortunate one. In early 1977, local voters in Petitioner's home district requested him to run for the position of School Director. Petitioner, through counsel, contacted a Deputy Attorney General Anderson, who allegedly informed Petitioner that he could run for the position if he cross filed and ran nonpartisan. On the basis of this advice, Petitioner circulated nominating petitions and cross filed as a candidate on March 7, 1977. At some point after advising Petitioner, Deputy Attorney General
Anderson learned that seeking such an office constituted a violation of Section 904 of the Civil Service Act (Act), Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, as amended, 71 P.S. § 741.904. Petitioner was advised that he might be in violation of the Act and inquired of the Commission on April 15, 1977 whether he could be a candidate for the School Director position. On April 19, 1977, Petitioner was advised by the Commission that he could not be a candidate. However, Petitioner was unable to have his name withdrawn from the election as March 15, 1977 was the last day to withdraw.*fn1
Subsequently, the Commission undertook an investigation of Petitioner's activities. Prior to the holding of formal hearings, the Commission sought an opinion from the Office of the Attorney General as to whether the Commission had any latitude in prosecuting or enforcing Section 904. On January 11, 1979, the Commission was informed by Attorney General's Opinion Number 79-3*fn2 that no discretion was available in such a matter. Formal hearings were then held by the Commission and on July 3, 1980, the Commission issued its adjudication and order finding Petitioner had violated Section 904. In this order, the Commission imposed the mandatory discharge required by Section 906 of the Act, 71 P.S. § 741.906.*fn3
On July 10, 1980, the Petitioner filed with the Commission a Petition for Reconsideration. On August 5, 1980, a Petition for Review of the July 3, 1980 adjudication and order was filed in this Court. We quashed
that appeal on September 5, 1980,*fn4 due to Petitioner's failure to comply with the 30 day appeal period provided by Pa. R.A.P. 1512(a). By letter of September 5, 1980, the Commission denied ...