Director of Finance v. Richter

Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We shall here reverse the order of a judge in the Superior Court of Baltimore City who directed issuance of the writ of mandamus to compel reinstatement of appellee, Michael A. Richter, Jr. (Richter), “as a Senior Buyer for the City of Baltimore, and that he be compensated for monies lost by reason of his dismissal The Chief of the Bureau of Purchases of Baltimore City, with the approval of the Director of Finance, discharged Richter effective July 31, 1969. The letter of dismissal issued on July 29 advised Richter that his employment was being terminated because he had “violated official regulations which resulted in loss or injury to the City and the public.” Through the Baltimore City Civil Service Commission, he requested a full statement of the particulars or specifications assigned as reason for the termination. On August 14 he was advised pursuant to that request that although he was present at a meeting on July 24 attended by the City Solicitor, the City Comptroller, the City Auditor, and the Director of the Department of Finance at which he was “informed in detail of the facts uncovered in the ²²⁸ departmental audit which led to [his] dismissal,” the City Purchasing Agent would be “happy to comply with the directive of the Civil Service Commission.” There then was set forth an itemization involving improper attachment of bids, acceptance of “late” bids, failure to award to “low” bidder, bids not “clocked in,” switching of awards, awards to high bidder, favoritism in awarding, splitting of awards, purchases made without use of bids, falsifying purchases to informal bids, and awarding to nonbidders.

He was informed that “[t]hese [were] the incidents which [had] been brought to [the] attention [of the City Purchasing Agent and the Director of Finance] as of [that] date.” The matter ultimately came on for hearing before the Civil Service Commission (the Commission). The City produced one witness, the City Auditor. He testified in substantial detail relative to purchases made by Richter which the auditor regarded as violations of the city charter. Richter’s defense consisted of a denial of certain allegations, a contention that yet other actions did not violate established procedures, that some actions were at the direction of his superiors, and that Richter was a person of honesty and integrity.

In its opinion the Commission said, in part: “A proper decision by the Commission on the facts of this case requires an examination of the Commission’s power to act in cases of discharge of employees. The Charter, Section 118, expressly forbids the discharge of one in the Classified Civil Service by reason of employee’s political opinions or affiliations, or refusing to contribute to any political fund or render any political service. There is no suggestion that these express prohibitions are in any way involved in this case. “The Charter continues, in the same Section, to provide that nothing in the Charter ‘shall forbid the removal [or] dismissal. . . of any ... employee for any cause, other than those hereinbefore enumerated, which, in the opinion of the person ²²⁹ authorized by law to remove or dismiss such . . . employee, may interfere with the efficient discharge of the duties of the position. ’ ... In investigating a removal, the Commission seeks to ascertain whether the removal was based upon one of the proscribed bases, which is not the case here, or was for ‘reasons other than the good of the service. ... ’ “The Charter does not accord to the Commission the power to reinstate employees dismissed nor is the Commission authorized to second guess the opinion of the person authorized by law to dismiss the employee. “The inquiry before the Commission is whether or not there are facts in the record upon which the person authorized by law to dismiss Mr. Richter