Appeal from the Order of the State Civil Service Commission in the case of John G. Andrejco v. Public Utility Commission, No. 5898.
Charles J. McKelvey, McNerney, Page, Vanderlin & Hall, for petitioner.
Louis G. Cocheres, Assistant Counsel, with him, Patricia J. Gustin, Legal Assistant, and Daniel P. Delaney, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Doyle and Barry, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry.
[ 109 Pa. Commw. Page 391]
This is an appeal brought by John G. Andrejco (appellant) from an adjudication and order of the State Civil Service Commission (Commission) affirming his dismissal from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) where he had been employed as a Public Utility Enforcement Officer, regular status. We affirm.
In late June, 1985, a PUC official received an anonymous telephone call informing him that the appellant was working for Preston Trucking Co., Inc., a regulated carrier. The official investigated the allegation and informed the appellant by letter that his outside employment was believed to be in violation of statute, PUC Work Rules, the PUC Code of Conduct and the State Ethics Act. On June 28, 1985, a pre-disciplinary hearing was held at which two PUC officials and the appellant were present. Following the hearing the officials recommended that the PUC terminate the appellant's employment.
By letter of July 11, 1985, the PUC discharged the appellant effective July 23, 1985, citing as the reason therefor the appellant's outside employment by a regulated carrier in violation of statutes and work rules.*fn1 Specifically, the PUC stated that the appellant's outside employment was in violation of 1) Section 301(b) of the Public Utility Code*fn2 2) PUC Employee Work Rules
[ 109 Pa. Commw. Page 392]
adopted in July of 1978, and 3) PUC Code of Conduct adopted in February of 1985. The appellant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Section 951(a) of the Civil Service Act*fn3 following which a hearing was held before the Civil Service Commission on October 16, 1985. The Commission dismissed the appeal and sustained the action of the PUC concluding that the appellant's outside employment was just cause for his removal. This appeal followed.
Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the constitutional rights of the appellant have been violated, an error of law has been committed, or a necessary finding of fact was unsupported by substantial evidence. Doerr v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 88 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 610, 491 A.2d 299 (1985).
The appellant first argues that the Commission's findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence.*fn4 After a careful ...