Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County in the cases of Thomas Pendergast v. City of Hazleton and James A. Paisley, No. 2769-C of 1982, No. 4196-C of 1982 and No. 333-C of 1984, dated November 6, 1985.
Anthony C. Busillo, II, Mancke, Lightman & Wagner, for appellant.
James A. Schneider, for appellees.
Judges Craig, Colins and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 102 Pa. Commw. Page 557]
Thomas Pendergast appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County which affirmed the City of Hazleton's decision to suspend and discharge Mr. Pendergast from the city's police department for violating department regulations. We affirm.
Mr. Pendergast was employed by the city as a police officer. On November 4, 1982, city council issued a resolution suspending Mr. Pendergast for ten days for failing to provide a physician's certificate following a two day absence and for fifteen days for failing to obey a directive. Mr. Pendergast appealed from that resolution to the trial court.
On December 30, 1983, city council issued eleven resolutions finding Mr. Pendergast guilty of violating department regulations, by failing to: appear for write-ups, pay parking fines, perform traffic duty, report for duty, report for duty at his scheduled time, notify the shift supervisor of his intention to return to duty after sick leave, be at his designated foot patrol area, be out in the intersection directing traffic on three occasions, and obey an order to sign a directive. City council discharged Mr. Pendergast for three of the above stated violations, failing to be out in the intersection on two occasions and refusing to obey an order to sign a directive. Mr. Pendergast appealed from those resolutions to the trial court. The trial court consolidated the two appeals.
[ 102 Pa. Commw. Page 558]
On appeal, Mr. Pendergast raises two issues. The statement of questions involved, in the brief, reads as follows:
Whether the adjudications rendered by the City of Hazleton are procedurally and constitutionally defective due to their failure to contain findings of fact and required conclusions of law?
Whether the city reasonably concluded that the charges resulting in appellant's dismissal were supported by evidence of record?
Although Mr. Pendergast, in the body of his brief, has argued additional issues regarding his suspension, he did not preserve those issues because he failed to state them as an issue in the ...