No. 6 W.D. Appeal Dkt. 1983, Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court, dated June 7, 1982 at No. 103 C.D. 1982, Granting the Respondent Pennsylvania State Police's Motion to Quash the Petition for Review from the Order entered by the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police on December 15, 1981.
Charles C. Gentile, Uniontown, Douglas L. Thomas, Hempstead, N.Y., for appellant.
Francis X. O'Brien, Office of Chief Counsel Pa. State Police, Harrisburg, for appellee.
Roberts, C.j., and Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson and Zappala, JJ.
Appellant, a corporal in the State Police, stood court martial on various charges. Found guilty, he was with the concurrence of the Commissioner, dismissed. On December 15, 1981, a memorandum notifying appellant of his dismissal, effective midnight of that day, was sent by certified mail. Because appellant would not receive the notice of dismissal in time to prevent further duty, he was notified by hand-delivered notice that he would be compensated for any hours worked until midnight December 17, 1981. Both notices were received by appellant on December 17, 1981.
Appellant filed a petition for review with the Commonwealth Court on January 18, 1982, challenging the denial of a continuance before the court martial and asserting a res judicata argument. In view of our determination, the basis of his appeal has no relevance. The Commissioner of the
State Police, appellee, filed a motion to quash the petition as untimely filed. After argument held on June 1, 1982, the Commonwealth Court (Blatt, J.) quashed the petition by order dated June 7, 1982.
Pa.R.A.P. 1512(a)(1) provides:
A petition for review of a quasijudicial order, or an order appealable under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 763(b) (awards of arbitrators) or under any other provision of law, shall be filed with the prothonotary of the appellate court within 30 days after the entry of the order.
Appellant argues that the date of entry of the order suspending him is December 17, 1981, the date he received his second, hand-delivered notice, and that that notice superseded the notice of December 15.*fn1 Thus, a petition for review filed at any time up to January 18 (the Monday following a thirtieth day falling on a weekend) would be timely. This argument must be rejected. It is clear that the order dismissing appellant was entered on December 15, 1981, and that the later notice effected no substantive amendment of the original order. The order was entered at the time of the December 15 mailing and the effect of the second notice was simply to inform appellant that he would be paid for hours worked through December 17.*fn2 This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that ...