Gray v. Warden

Per Curiam. ⁷²⁵ The appellant, Mervin C. Gray (Gray), on July 29, 1966, was notified by the appellee, John P. Garrity, Warden of the Maryland House of Correction (Warden), by telegram and a letter that he was suspended from his position as a Correctional Officer I at the Maryland House of Correction without pay pending the filing of formal charges with the Commissioner of Personnel of the State of Maryland. Prior to the notice, Gray had been employed as a Correctional Officer I at the House of Correction for about four years. No formal charges having been filed, Gray, on August 29, 1966, filed a petition in the Superior Court of Baltimore City against the Warden for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to command and direct the Warden to restore Gray forthwith to his position at the House of Correction and to pay Gray his full salary for the period of the alleged illegal suspension. The Warden in his answer to Gray’s petition, asserted his right to suspend Gray under the provisions of the Maryland Code and alleged that on September 2, 1966, charges and specifications for Gray’s removal as a permanent employee of the State were filed in the office of the Commissioner of Personnel (a copy of these charges and specifications were attached as an exhibit) in which proceeding the validity of Gray’s suspension without pay and his present and future status as a permanent employee of the State would be litigated and determined and that the writ of mandamus could not lawfully issue under these circumstances.

After a hearing, Chief Judge Foster, on September 22, 1966, denied Gray’s petition, and a judgment absolute was entered for the defendant for costs. A timely appeal was taken from that judgment to this Court. Subsequent to the trial court’s decision, the charges filed against Gray were heard before the State Commissioner of Personnel. On November 1, 1966, the Commissioner of Personnel filed an order permanently separating Gray from the classified service of the State effective on the date of his suspension, July 29, 1966.

These last two occurrences do not appear in the record but it was stated at the argument that the parties agreed that they should be brought to the Court’s attention. Code, Article 64A, Section 33 reads in relevant part, as follows : ⁷²⁶ “No employee who has completed his probation may be permanently removed from the classified service except for cause, upon written charges and after an opportunity to be heard in his own defense.” Rule 48 of the State Employees Personnel Rules promulgated by the Commissioner of Personnel pursuant to Code, Article 64A, Section 11, provides as follows: “Charges for the removal of an employee as provided in Section 33 of Article 64A,