Shellenberger v. Warburton

Citations

• 279 Pa. 577
• 124 A. 189
• 1924 Pa. LEXIS 784

Syllabus

<p>Public officers — Discharge—Notice—Municipalities—Mandamus —Act of June 25, 1919, article XIX, section 18, P. L. 620.</p> <p>1. A notice of discharge to a member of the classified civil service of Philadelphia need not be made with the certainty of a bill of indictment, nor contain a rescript of the facts on which the discharging officer’s knowledge is based.</p> <p>2. Such notice is sufficient if it points to some specific law that has been violated, without going into details.</p> <p>3. In mandamus proceedings, brought by an employee discharged on such notice, the court is not concerned with the truth or falsity of the charge.</p> <p>4. In discharging an employee, it would be better practice for the head of the department to give the accused definite and specific information as a matter of justice and right, but the Act of June 25, 1919, article XIX, section 18, P. L. 620, relating to such discharge, does not require it.</p> <p>5. Efficiency is maintained through strict discipline; if the power to discipline is taken away, efficiency for most purposes is lost.</p>