Plaintiff gave notice of appeal and requested information on appeal procedure but then apparently abandoned the appeal when this action was filed. However, defendant's rules and regulations on discipline restrict suspensions to not more than one month and they contain no authority for retroactive dismissal. If dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed, Michigan Civil Service Commission v Local 1342, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 32 Mich. App. 104; 188 N.W.2d 219 (1971). Thus plaintiff may be entitled to lost wages from August 14, 1967 to January 8, 1974, and she should not be deprived of her right to seek this relief without being given the opportunity to complete the appeal of her dismissal and thus exhaust her administrative remedies.
An administrative agency, in addition to following constitutional and statutory mandates, must also comply with its own rules. Courts will hold an agency to the standards it has established to govern its relationships with government employees. Service v Dulles, 354 U.S. 363; 77 S Ct 1152; 1 L Ed 2d 1403 (1957), Vitarelli v Seaton, 359 U.S. 535; 79 S Ct 968; 3 L Ed 2d 1012 (1959), Dillon v Lapeer State Home Training School, 364 Mich. 1, 21; 110 N.W.2d 588 (1961) (concurring opinion), Michigan Civil Service Commission v Local 1342, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 32 Mich. App. 104; 188 N.W.2d 219 (1971), 1 Cooper, State Administrative Law, 270-272. We must consider plaintiffs' claim that the department, without legitimate reason, disregarded rule 18.3b.
"Leave to appeal denied * * * without prejudice to any rights defendants and appellants may have to proceed in circuit court under the administrative procedures act." 382 Mich. 782; the sequel of the case may be found in 32 Mich. App. 104 (1971). To promote uniformity of the appeal process from administrative agencies, this Court adopted, effective July 12, 1971, GCR 1963, 706.3 which will govern all appeals from the Michigan Civil Service Commission in the future:
Plaintiff asserts that neither the Department of Natural Resources nor the Civil Service Commission had the power to compel him to submit to a psychiatric examination under Rule 10:18 or any other of the rules of the Civil Service Commission; that it was error for the hearing officer to justify his order by reference to a "common law of shop". In Michigan Civil Service Commission v Local1342, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 32 Mich. App. 104 (1971), we were faced with action by the commission which was not only unauthorized by its rules, but also contrary to its stated policy. In the instant case, Rule 1.1 provides that separation shall be based upon merit, efficiency, and fitness.