
    ILLEGAL SUSPENSION OF A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE.
    Court of Appeals for Jefferson County.
    City of Steubenville v. Henry Bougher.
    Decided, December Term, 1916.
    
      Civil Service — Sealer of Weights and Measures May Not he Removed for Lack of Funds to Pay Him — ■Authority of the Director of Public Service.
    
    1. Where a sealer of weights and measures has ¡been appointed by the mayor of a municipal corporation, such officer is subject to the rules of the civil service, and can only be suspended or removed in accordance with the provisions of the civil service act. 105, 106 O. L„ 411.
    2. Said act does not permit a removal or suspension of such officer • by reason of a shortage of funds to pay his salary.
    3. The director of public service has no authority to make such suspension or removal. ■
    
      F. E. Morrow, for plaintiff in error.
    
      G. L. Williams, contra.
   Metcalfe, J.

The defendant in error was appointed sealer of weights and measures of the city of Steubenville by the mayor of that city, and as such appointee he is subject to the regulations of the civil service act. 105-106 O. L., 411.

A shortage of funds with which to pay his and other salaries occurred in the city treasury, and alleging such shortage as a reason for his action the director of public service issued an order suspending Mr. Bougher from his office indefinitely.

This action was brought by Mr. Bougher to recover his salary, and it is contended that he could only be suspended or removed in accordance with the regulations of the civil service act, and, that in any event, the director of public service had no power to suspend or remove him.

Section 486-17 of the civil service act, supra, provides':

“In cases of reduction, lay-off or suspension of an employee or subordinate, whether appointed for a definite term or otherwise, the appointing authority shall furnish such employee or subordinate with a copy of the order of lay-off, reduction or suspension and his reasons for the same, and give such employee or subordinate a reasonable time in which to make and file an explanation. ’ ’

The appointing authority in the case of the defendant in error is the mayor, and the appointment appears to have been legally made by such officer; hence the provisions above cited applies to him, and hence he could not be arbitrarily suspended indefi-. nitely for any reason, but has the right to an explanation of any charge made against him and to a trial in accordance with the further provisions of the act.

We find no provision in the act authorizing or permitting the suspension of an officer or employee for the reaspn that there is a shortage of funds in the treasury. The appointing and removing power resting in the mayor it follows that the action of the director of public service was a usurpation of such power and his action absolutely void.

Judgment affirmed.

Pollock, J., and Farr, J., concur.  