Gervais v. New Orleans Police Department
Gervais v. New Orleans Police Department
Gervais v. New Orleans Police Department
41509
Supreme Court of Louisiana
1
Gervais v. New Orleans Police Department 226 La. 782 (La. 1955)
matters not that appellant's acts upon which his time, the procedure by which it may be protected
dismissal was founded occurred prior to the or defended, save as otherwise curtailed by the
adoption of the constitutional amendment. civil service provisions of the Constitution.
1 It provides: "All existing laws relating to
Counsel also claims that there was no lawful
the State or City Civil Service System are evidence produced against appellant to warrant his
continued in force insofar as not in conflict dismissal. It is said that, whereas it is true that
herewith, subject to the power of the
appellant committed all of the acts specified as
Legislature to amend or repeal such laws or
grounds for dismissal, his conduct was not such as
adopt new laws, provided said amendments
to justify the action taken against him, because
or new laws are supplementary and not in
they occurred while he was on vacation and,
conflict herewith".
further, because of his uncontroverted testimony
It is also plain that the civil service provisions are that he and his female companion did not occupy
not penal as contended by counsel for appellant. the bed of the hotel room at the same time.
Civil service laws are not enacted to penalize
The answer to this contention is that it involves
anyone. They are designed to eradicate the system
determination of a question of fact of which this
of appointment to public office for political
Court has no appellate jurisdiction under the
considerations and to establish in its place a merit
provisions of Section 15(O) (1) of Article XIV of
system of fitness and efficiency as the basis of
the Constitution. There was unquestionably some
appointment and, to this end, the appointee is
evidence before the Civil Service Commission
given tenure during good behavior. Evidently, this
exhibiting that the acts committed by appellant
notion of counsel (that the constitutional civil
were prejudicial to the service. We are without
service amendment is penal in nature) emanates
authority to examine into the question of the
from the faulty premise that appellant had a sort of
sufficiency thereof.
inalienable property right to his position which
could only be divested by the procedure obtaining The ruling of the City Civil Service Commission
at the time the right was conferred. But such of New Orleans is therefore affirmed.
argument overlooks, of course, the fact that,
FOURNET, C. J., absent.
except for civil service, appellant had no right of
tenure whatever and was subject to summary HAMITER, J., did not participate.
dismissal. And the legislative authority which
created the right can take it away or change, at any