The Officers, however, dispute the second element—that their conduct impaired the department's efficiency. Citing Judge Bonin's dissent in Adams v. Department of Police, 08–0468 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/12/09), 7 So.3d 763, the Officers contend that there is no evidence that the complained of conduct “bore a real and substantial relationship to the efficient operation of the public service.” A similar issue was raised by the appellant-officer in Adams, supra.
An appellate court reviews a Commission's findings of fact by applying manifest error standard of review. Milton , 2016-0625, p. 10, 216 So.3d at 831 (citing Adams v. Department of Police , 2008-0468, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/12/09), 7 So.3d 763, 765 ). In determining whether the disciplinary action was based on good cause and whether the punishment imposed is commensurate with the dereliction, an appellate court should not modify the Commission's decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.
SeeWalters v. Department of Police of City of New Orleans , 454 So.2d 106 (La. 1984). A civil service employee subjected to disciplinary action by his or her appointing authority has the right of appeal to the Civil Service Commission. La. Const. Art. 10, §§ 8, 12 ; See, e.g.,Adams v. Dept. of Police , 08-0468, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/12/09), 7 So.3d 763, 765. On appeal to the Commission, the Appointing Authority must prove by a preponderance of the evidence good or lawful cause for taking disciplinary action.
See Walters v. Department of Police of City of New Orleans , 454 So.2d 106 (La. 1984). A civil service employee subjected to disciplinary action by his or her appointing authority has the right of appeal to the Civil Service Commission. La. Const. Art. 10 §§ 8, 12 ; See, e.g., Adams v. Dept. of Police , 08-0468, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/12/09), 7 So.3d 763, 765. On appeal to the Commission, the Appointing Authority must prove by a preponderance of the evidence good or lawful cause for taking disciplinary action.
As to the Commission's findings of fact, the appellate court applies the manifest error standard of review. Adams v. Department of Police , 08-0468, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/12/09), 7 So.3d 763, 765, citingCure , supra . In reviewing the Commission's determination as to whether the disciplinary action was based on legal cause and whether the punishment is commensurate with the dereliction, the appellate court should not modify the Commission's decision unless it was arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.
See Walters v. Department of Police of City of New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106 (La.1984). A civil service employee subjected to disciplinary action by his or her appointing authority has the right of appeal to the Civil Service Commission. La. Const. Art. 10 §§ 8, 12; See, e.g., Adams v. Dept. of Police, 08–0468, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/12/09), 7 So.3d 763, 765. On appeal to the Commission, the Appointing Authority must prove by a preponderance of the evidence good or lawful cause for taking disciplinary action.
Adams received a one-day suspension in July, 2007, for failing to timely sign a log book at the end of her shift. The imposed discipline was upheld in Adams v. Department of Police, 2008–0468 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/12/09), 7 So.3d 763 (Bonin, J. dissenting). Regarding the third assignment of error, Adams contends that the appointing authority's investigation did not comply with the sixty-day time limit set forth in La. R.S. 40:2531(B)(7) and, thus, the imposed discipline is an absolute nullity under La. R.S. 40:2531(C).
We have reviewed this factual determination under the manifest error standard. In Adams v. Department of Police, 08-0468 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/12/09), 7 So.3d 763, 765, we stated: The Commission's decision is subject to review on any question of law or fact upon appeal. La.Const. art. X, § 12. This court applies the manifest error standard of review to the Commission's findings of fact . . .