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.

STEVEN MARINO v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (01/10/85)

decided: January 10, 1985.

STEVEN MARINO, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, RESPONDENT. GEORGE HAVIRLAK, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, RESPONDENT



Appeals from the Order of the Pennsylvania State Police in case of Cadet Steven M. Marino and Cadet George Havirlak, 54th PSP Cadet Class, dated April 12, 1984.

COUNSEL

Anthony C. Busillo, II, Mancke, Lightman & Wagner, for petitioners.

Debra K. Wallet, Deputy Attorney General, with her, Gregory R. Neuhauser, Deputy Attorney General, Allen C. Warshaw, Senior Attorney General, Chief, Litigation Section, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General.

Harold I. Goodman, with him, Dyan M. Dyttmer, for Amicus Curiae, Keith Small, Azon Huff, Keith Barnet et al.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., and Judges Rogers, Williams, Jr., Craig, MacPhail, Barry and Colins. Opinion by Judge Colins. Judge Williams, Jr. and Judge MacPhail concur in the result only.

Author: Colins

[ 87 Pa. Commw. Page 41]

Petitioners, Steven Marino and George Havirlak, seek review of the decision of the Pennsylvania State Police to terminate their positions as Cadets.

Petitioners were notified by their platoon leaders in April 1984, after being Cadets since February 1984, that they were under investigation for allegedly cheating on examinations administered on March 28 and April 6, 1984. They were provided an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Director of Training. The State Police Disciplinary Officer and the Director of the Training Division recommended dismissal to the Director of the Bureau of Training and Education, who advised the Commissioner of the State Police. On April 12, 1984 petitioners were informed that they were dismissed.

Petitioners claim that they possess a property right to continued public employment and that the termination

[ 87 Pa. Commw. Page 42]

    of their employ without a hearing is a violation of due process. We disagree.

Petitioners were probationary employees. Section 205(f) of the Administrative Code, 71 P.S. ยง 65(f), provides that:

All new cadets and troopers shall serve a probationary period of eighteen months from date of original enlistment during which time they may be dismissed by the commissioner for violations of rules and regulations, incompetency, and inefficiency without ...


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.