From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watson v. Pace

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Dec 3, 1951
101 F. Supp. 477 (D.D.C. 1951)

Opinion

C.A. No. 4670-49.

December 3, 1951.

Claude L. Dawson, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

Joseph Kovner, Washington, D.C., for defendant.


Plaintiff, Joseph L. Watson, seeks judgment of this Court declaring that he was unlawfully discharged as a Civil Service employee of defendant. He further requests that he be restored to service with accrued salary. It is conceded that all procedural requirements of the law were met as to notice and hearing. However, plaintiff asserts that there is no evidence justifying his discharge and that therefore the action discharging him was arbitrary and capricious.

I do not believe that plaintiff's contention is well taken. Plaintiff held the position of Civilian Personnel Officer and Executive Secretary of the Civil Service Board of Examiners. He was charged with violations of certain established rules and procedures relating to the performance of his duties in those positions. The most that can be said for his contention in this case is that the issue of fact whether he violated the rules was decided adversely to him by the administrative officials.

There is no evidence that these officials did not act in good faith, or were motivated by malice, or did not honestly exercise their judgment that plaintiff had violated the rules. To the contrary, the record clearly justifies the conclusion that the officers acted in good faith in concluding that plaintiff's discharge would promote the efficiency of the service because of the rule violations.

The determination whether or not a person's discharge would promote the efficiency of the Government service is vested in the administrative officer and no Court has power to review his action if that action was taken in good faith. Gadsden v. United States, 78 F. Supp. 126, 111 ct. cl. 487; Carter v. Forrestal, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 53, 175 F.2d 364; Levine v. Farley, 70 App.D.C. 381, 107 F.2d 186; Eberlein v. United States, 1921, 257 U.S. 82, 45 S.Ct. 12, 66 L.Ed. 140.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law may be drawn in conformance with this opinion.


Summaries of

Watson v. Pace

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Dec 3, 1951
101 F. Supp. 477 (D.D.C. 1951)
Case details for

Watson v. Pace

Case Details

Full title:WATSON v. PACE, Secretary of Army

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Dec 3, 1951

Citations

101 F. Supp. 477 (D.D.C. 1951)

Citing Cases

Watson v. Pace

PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the District Court. Watson v. Pace, 101 F. Supp. 477.…

Mann v. Klassen

ORDER 359 U.S. 535 79 S. Ct. 968 3 L.Ed.2d 1012 430 F.2d 665 401 U.S. 909 91 S.Ct. 870 27 L.Ed.2d 807 429…