HEAP v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1935)

Respondents' demurrer to appellant's petition for a writ of mandate was sustained without leave to amend, and the appeal is from the judgment subsequently entered against petitioner. The petition alleges that the appellant, a civil service employee in the bureau of engineering of respondent city, was discharged from his position, and that he thereupon made written application to the civil service commission for an investigation of the grounds for such discharge and hearing thereon. A certified copy of the findings of the commission, the statutory name of which is “Board of Civil Service Commissioners,” is made a part of the petition. This shows that on November 13, 1931, “a motion was adopted rescinding the action of the Civil Service Commission on October 20, 1931, sustaining said discharge,” and that a second motion was then adopted, finding that the grounds stated for the discharge of the appellant were not sustained and ordering him restored to duty. The only question presented on this appeal is whether or not the civil service commission, after having passed upon the question submitted to it, could thereafter vacate its findings and make another and contrary order. Respondent contends that when the commission acted on the matter it exhausted its jurisdiction, and that the subsequent resolution is void.

The charter of the respondent city provides that a discharged employee may file an application with the board of civil service commissioners for an investigation of the grounds for his discharge. It further provides: “If after such investigation said board finds, in writing, that the grounds stated for such removal, discharge or suspension were insufficient or were not sustained, and also finds in writing that the person removed, discharged or suspended is a fit and suitable person to fill the position from which he was removed, discharged or suspended, said board shall order said person * * * to be reinstated or restored to duty. The order of said board with respect to such removal, discharge or suspension, shall be forthwith certified to the appointing board or officer, and shall be final and conclusive. * * *” Section 112 (a), St. 1925, pp. 1024, 1067.

The jurisdiction of the commission is a special and limited one. Petersen v. Civil Service Board, 67 Cal. App. 70, 227 P. 238. The required procedure was followed, and the question of appellant's discharge was determined by the commission when it adopted the first resolution. Its action sustaining his discharge was “final and conclusive.” Krohn v. Board of Water & Power Commissioners, 95 Cal. App. 289, 296, 272 P. 757. It had no jurisdiction to retry the question and make a different finding at a later time. The charter gives no such grant of power, and it may not be implied. “A civil service commission has no inherent power after entering a final order dismissing an officer from the service to entertain a motion for new trial or rehearing and review and set aside its prior order.” 43 Cor. Jur. 682. See, also, Cook v. Civil Service Commission, 160 Cal. 598, 600, 117 P. 662.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.