116 C. Cls. Syllabus Same; authority of department head to dismiss Government employee for cause. The authority of the head of a Department to dismiss a Government employee for the good of the service on charges of misconduct or delinquency in the proper performance of duties is not conditioned upon a conviction of such employee of a criminal offense. United States 36 Same; acquittal on criminal charge does not invalidate removal for cause. The acquittal of a Government employee on an indictment charging him with the commission of a criminal offense cannot be treated as invalidating the action of the Department head in removing such employee from his position for the good of the service. United States 36 Same; reasonable cause for removal sufficient.-Reasonable cause for removal of a Government employee by a Department head is sufficient under the statute irrespective of conviction or acquittal of a criminal offense. Officers 69.7 Same; no review provided for action of administrative official where statutory procedure is followed.—Under the statutes authority to dismiss a Government employee for cause is vested in the proper administrative officers without specific limitation on their exercise of judgment and discretion under that authority and no provision is made for review of their findings where the prescribed procedure is followed, as it was in the instant case. Officers 72 (2) Same; decisions of Court of Claims.-The decisions of the Court of Claims are uniform in holding that the court will not review the causes of removal of a Government employee where it appears that the procedural requirements prescribed by statute have been complied with, and there is no showing that the action was taken maliciously and in bad faith. Officers 72 (2) Same; statute of limitations; jurisdiction.-Plaintiff was discharged for cause on November 6, 1929, when he was more than 55 years of age, and his claim for an immediate annuity accrued on that date. His claim for a deferred life annuity under Section 7 (c) of the Civil Service Retirement Act (44 Stat. 904, 909) accrued August 22, 1938, the date on which he reached the age of 70 years. The petition in the instant case was filed January 10, 1949, more than six years after his claim accrued, in either instance, and is barred by the statute of limitations. (28 U. S. C. 262; 1946 Ed.). The statute of limitations is jurisdictional in the Court of Claims. Courts 461 577 Reporter's Statement of the Case The Reporter's statement of the case: Mr. H. J. Graham for the plaintiff. Mr. John R. Franklin, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General H. G. Morison, for the defendant. The plaintiff, a former Civil Service employee in the United States Treasury Department, seeks to recover an annuity under Sections 1 and 7 of the Civil Service Retirement Act of May 22, 1920 (41 Stat. 614), as amended by the Act of July 3, 1926 (44 Stat. 904, 909). He was discharged November 6, 1929, for cause, and his application, in May 1934, for an annuity was denied. Plaintiff alleges that the action of the Secretary of the Treasury removing him from the service was erroneous, arbitrary and capricious, and therefore illegal. The court, having made the foregoing introductory statement, entered special findings of fact as follows: 1. The plaintiff is a resident of Lexington, Kentucky. He was born on August 22, 1868, and reached the age of 70 on August 22, 1938. 2. Plaintiff, during the periods shown below, was an employee of the United States Treasury Department, serving first in the Internal Revenue Service and later in the Bureau of Prohibition in that Department. He was appointed and served from February 8, 1899, to March 10, 1920, at which time he resigned. On December 31, 1925, he was appointed to the position of Alcohol Inspector in the Prohibition Unit and transferred to the Bureau of Prohibition on April 1, 1927. He was removed from the service for cause, effective at the close of business November 6, 1929. By this suit plaintiff claims the annuity to which he believes himself entitled under the Civil Service Retirement Act. 3. During the period of plaintiff's employment, the Civil Service Retirement Act was enacted. Thereafter the usual deductions under such Act were made from the salary of plaintiff. Sometime after his removal from the service, he withdrew an amount which he contributed by the deductions from pay described above. Should the court order that plaintiff is entitled to the annuity claimed, plaintiff stands ready to repay the amount withdrawn with interest. 116 C. Cls. Reporter's Statement of the Case 4. By a letter from the Commissioner, Bureau of Prohibition, dated November 9, 1929, and bearing approval by direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, plaintiff was notified of his suspension from duty and pay as a Prohibition Inspector effective as of the close of business November 6, 1929, pending an investigation of charges preferred against him. 5. Thereafter on December 20, 1929, by a letter from the Commissioner, Bureau of Prohibition, which was approved by direction of the Secretary of the Treasury on December 23, 1929, plaintiff was notified of his removal for the good of the service. This letter stated: This action is taken after careful consideration of the charges preferred against you under date of November 18, 1929, and your reply thereto, dated November 24, 1929, which, in the opinion of this Bureau, does not satisfactorily refute the charges. There is no evidence that any protest or appeal from this action of dismissal was made or taken by the plaintiff. 6. By letter to plaintiff dated November 18, 1929, from the Special Inspection Division, by Thomas Lee, Special Inspector, charges were preferred against plaintiff as follows: As a result of an official investigation made at the direction of the Commissioner of Prohibition, it becomes my duty to prefer certain charges against your official conduct as Prohibition Inspector of the Bureau of Prohibition. There are detailed herein numerous acts that have occurred at various times during your service as an employee of the Bureau and which are considered to constitute major delinquencies on your part while serving in the employ of the Government. You were regularly assigned to serve as Prohibition Inspector at the Glenwood Industrial Distilling Company at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the purpose of supervising the plant and warehouse as to operation, production and removal of alcohol, to the end that the Government would be secured from all unlawful diversion of this alcohol; the duties of your position as Prohibition Inspector under such assignment at all times requiring unusual alertness and fidelity with responsibility to properly insure that there would be no unlawful diversion of alcohol. That during the periods indicated, through your utter failure or neglect to discharge your duties as Prohibition Inspector while assigned in such a capacity at the plant 577 Reporter's Statement of the Case of the Glenwood Industrial Distilling Company, there were unlawfully and irregularly made numerous diversions of alcohol. On March 18, 22 and April 2, 1929, while assigned to duty at the Glenwood Industrial Distilling Company at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, you were notified by the office of the Chief Inspector, Bureau of Prohibition, that shipments of alcohol were being consigned from the plant of the Publicker Commercial Alcohol Company to the plant of the Glenwood Industrial Distilling Company. In your report of March 18, 1929, to the Prohibition Administrator at Philadelphia, you state that freight car A. C. L. 47597, bearing seals 743 and 744, and containing one hundred drums of ethyl alcohol in bond, containing a total of 5400 wine gallons, under serial numbers 52515 and 52614, inclusive, was received at the plant of the Glenwood Industrial Distilling Company. It is further indicated on this report that this alcohol was completely denatured and that one hundred and five drums of C. D. A. 5, containing 5742.90 wine gallons, were shipped by truck to the General Drug Supply and Products Company, 1216 South 6th Street, Camden, New Jersey. Your report for March 22, 1929, to the Prohibition Administrator at Philadelphia, shows that one hundred drums of ethyl alcohol in bond, containing a total of 5,400 wine gallons, under serial numbers 52797 and 52896, inclusive, were received at the plant of the Glenwood Industrial Distilling Company in freight car P. R. R. 31469, under seals 767 and 768. It is indicated on this report that this alcohol was completely denatured and shipped in one hundred and give [sic] drums, containing a total of 5,740.10 wine gallons, to the General Drug Supply and Products Company at Camden, New Jersey, by truck. Further reference to your daily reports to the Prohibition Administrator at Philadelphia discloses that on April 2, 1929, you reported that freight car P. R. R. 82459, containing one hundred drums of ethyl alcohol in bond, serial numbers 53457 to 53556, inclusive, was received at the plant of the Glenwood Industrial Distilling Company. This quantity of alcohol is alleged to have been fully denatured and shipped by truck to the General Drug Supply and Products Company at Camden, New Jersey. It is charged that freight car A. C. L. 47597, bearing seals 743 and 744, containing one hundred drums of ethyl alcohol in bond, a total of 5,400 wine gallons, under serial numbers 52515 to 52614, inclusive, shipped from the Publicker Commercial Alcohol Company, was never put on 116 C. Cls. Reporter's Statement of the Case the railroad siding of the Glenwood Industrial Distilling Company at Philadelphia, but was diverted en route and the contents transferred to other cars which proceeded to other destinations. It is charged that the one hundred drums of ethyl alcohol in bond, bearing serial numbers 52515 and 52614, inclusive, were never received at the plant of the Glenwood Industrial Distilling Company and, therefore, could not be completely denatured under your supervision. It also follows that the completely denatured product could not be shipped by truck to the General Drug Supply and Products Company at Camden, New Jersey, inasmuch as the ethyl alcohol was never received at the plant of the Glenwood Industrial Distilling Company. It is charged that your report to the Prohibition Administrator at Philadelphia, dated March 18, 1929, is false and untrue. It is charged that the alcohol consigned from the plant of the Publicker Commercial Alcohol Company on March 22, 1929, never reached the plant of the Glenwood Industrial Distilling Company but was diverted en route. It is charged that your daily report to the Prohibition Administrator at Philadelphia, dated March 22, 1929, wherein it is stated that this alcohol had been received, denatured and reshipped to the General Drug Supply and Products Company at Camden, New Jersey, is false and untrue. It is charged that the alcohol shipped from the plant of the Publicker Commercial Alcohol Company on April 2, 1929, to the plant of the Glenwood Industrial Distilling Company, did not reach its destination but was diverted en route. It is charged that your daily reports of April 2, 1929, to the Prohibition Administrator at Philadelphia, wherein it is stated that this alcohol was received, denatured and re-shipped to the General Drug Supply and Products Company, Camden, New Jersey, is false and untrue. The sole purpose and duties of your position as a Prohibition Inspector were at all times the prevention of such violations to the diligent and faithful discharge of your duties while assigned to the plant of the Glenwood Industrial Distilling Company. It follows, therefore, that your failure to circumvent such violations, together with the submission of the false reports to your superior officer, shows conclusively that you are unable and not fit to discharge the duties of Prohibition Inspector. Accordingly, your unfitness for the position you |