DANIEL ALTON WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
EUGENE M. ZUCKERT, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the government is not required to produce individuals whose affidavits form the basis of dismissal charges for cross-examination.
Appellant, a civilian employee of the Air Force, was discharged based on affidavits. He requested to cross-examine the affiants, but the Air Force dec…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Veterans Preference Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The District Court granted summary judgment sustaining the discharge of appellant as a civilian employee of the United States Air Force. Appellant claims that under the pertinent provisions of the Veterans’ Preference Act, 58 Stat. 390 (1944), as amended, 5 U.S.C.A. § 863, and the regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission pursuant to that Act he was entitled to have the appellees produce for cross-examination the three members of the Air Force whose affidavits were the basis of the charges against him. Appellees declined to order the production of these persons as witnesses. There is no claim that the notice of charges or administrative hearing procedures were otherwise defective.
The statutes under which Congress has authorized the dismissal of civilian employees of the government by administrative process do not require the government, in this case the Air Force, to produce for cross-examination the persons whose affidavits or statements supply the factual basis for dismissal. 62 Stat. 354 (1948), 5 U.S.C.A. § 652(a). The burden of producing witnesses at a Civil Service Commission hearing under the Veterans’ Preference Act is, under the pertinent regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 22.607 (rev. 1961), properly left upon the party who wants them. See Deviny v. Campbell, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 171, 194 F. 2d 876, cert. denied, 344 U.S. 826, 73 S.Ct. 27, 97 L.Ed. 643 (1952). The'failure of the Air Force to produce such witnesses here can in no way be viewed as a denial of appellant’s statutory and procedural rights. See Shields v. Sharp, No. 15666 (D.C.Cir. order, Nov. 1, 1960); Ellis v. Mueller, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 174, 280 F. 2d 722, cert. denied, 364 U.S. 883, 81 S.Ct. 172, 5 L.Ed.2d 104 (1960).
Appellant concedes he did not request the three Airmen to attend the hearing; he concedes he does not know whether, if asked, they would have attended or if they attended how they would testify. Appellant has thus failed to use available administrative means to arrange for the appearance of witnesses as provided by the Civil Service Commission Regulations. See 5 C.F.R. § 22.607 (rev. 1961).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Zuckert, 371 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1963)
-
DEW v. Najeeb E. Halaby, 317 F.2d 582 (D.C. Cir. 1963)
-
Caplan v. Connally, 299 F.2d 126 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carpenter Container Corp. v. Container Co., 344 U.S. 826 (U.S. 1952)
- Chisholm-Moore Hoist Corp. v. Carlson, 364 U.S. 883 (U.S. 1960)
- Deviny v. Campbell, 194 F.2d 876 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
- Ellis v. Mueller, 280 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir. 1960)