
    CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation in the State of Florida; M. L. Reese, City Manager, Director of Public Safety, City of Miami; and R. Frazier Potts, Stuart Morrison, Richard F. Helken, Les Perkins and Nora Womble, as members of the Civil Service Board, City of Miami, Appellants, v. Lawrence B. J. WALSH, Appellee.
    No. 61-674.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
    March 27, 1962.
    Robert D. Zahner, City Atty., and Charles K. Allan, Asst. City Atty., for appellants.
    Cowart & Dollar, Miami, for appellee.
    Before HORTON, CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ._
   PER CURIAM.

The City of Miami, the city manager, and the members constituting the Civil Service Board of the City of Miami, appeal an order granting the appellee’s petition for writ of certiorari, the effect of which was to quash, vacate and set aside an order of the city manager finding the appellee to be guilty of conduct unbecoming an employee and suspending the appellee for fifteen working days.

The appellants ostensibly pose two questions on appeal, but they appear to encompass the same principle — whether or not there was competent substantial evidence adduced before the Civil Service Board to sustain the finding that the appellee was not guilty of the charge. The circuit court, in its order granting the writ of certiorari and quashing the city manager’s order, found that the evidence before the Civil Service Board was in conflict but that the findings were not manifestly against the clear preponderance of the evidence, and accordingly granted the writ upon the authority of City of Miami v. Huttoe, Fla.1949, 38 So.2d 819, and City of Miami v. State ex rel. Houston, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 176.

We have examined the testimony and the record of the proceedings before the Civil Service Board, and conclude, as did the able trial judge, that there was substantial competent evidence in the record which, if believed, would support the findings of the Civil Service Board. There is little we can add to this finding. The authorities relied upon by the trial judge for his conclusion enunciated the correct principles of law applicable to the facts in this case.

Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.  