ÿWPCž Χ>ãbÍ:ŠùlÕñyç$hî•÷Him€(Ç:ˆùP¨Dç½­õQ¤³ì‹"#°eÏŽßÏ>­Î¿¹£Ç<^ É‚¡vÍüÑ6­ X!K*q™£tÃDG¾*…æCÃu!u‰q[¨¡„ÈæÜ#®«§G¤zÈev†þYú¢š:ÉÁøZ†Ý/V"=ÛÓÓÍT(›°”"/AlnPtÓ6 ¡ó¿­º¶S® ¾‚ÿÑ#u·Ÿ’ÿqUÍû¤§ VYµh”*%JŸ›B¼Ûù ø!Mcå"å}>øÿ¤¾$IkYTùã¯6KCà8"@s±X`Zx*™3BKô‡N@¿‰ùÛ$>>¬}œèSjúXÛã‡ß4¸_«ÞÍüÿ8Iä¹R‹}QÛx‹ŸÉc ¨5(ªÅªàõ0ù¨Ï»*}V°{““™;–pU3%áÔQ~5ò:ùVZíºÀ/À­h\F*zà¬{ã)ƒ/®Æ;µn[)»ÆÔ nÃ"o¡²ZË Š%ÆÿTÇ9ÎnÜöí˜{ ›¨×P<Úί@?z)Ä ž®¼F=©‹ YŒÔεÔÞu⢜à(ÓÜÖÔÖoî«2™qÿo´ÉÓýûâ¡ü¼D©f^ù3Èßb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ ’™ Æ+ÆñÆ·Æ} 0DCN‡‰‰E‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘b““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““ 0ë›››› B†† 0¤£ D3G D-z 0K§§ ASòÆE 0¤  0D¯ A«ó˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»n™–/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ˆÝ ƒRg{$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôèáò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô_ÔMaasikasÔ_Ô€was€also€charged€with€a€pursuit€violation€and€received€a€five€day€suspension,€which€was€alsoÐ ° Ðconsidered€by€the€Administrative€Law€Judge€and€the€Civil€Service€Commission€in€the€course€of€the€appeal.€€Since€bothÐ tÄ Ðthe€Administrative€Law€Judge€and€the€Civil€Service€Commission€reversed€and€dismissed€the€pursuit€violation€and€theÐ 8ˆ Ðfive€day€suspension€resulting€therefrom,€the€pursuit€violation€will€not€be€further€considered.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  - ù-(|G2g{$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[‰»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôèáò»»Ô d(|3Ia$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[‰»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ia$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[‰»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[‰»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼[‰»»»ÔÑ8€aXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îG[‰ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼[‰»îîG #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓNovember€3,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XaX»¼[‰ÔÌò òÔ#†¼[‰»XXaõ#ÔERIK€Ô_ÔMAASIKASÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€METROPOLITAN€GOVERNMENT€OF€Ð úJ ÐNASHVILLE€AND€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÔ‡XaX»¼[‰Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€01„2424„III€€€€€€Ellen€Ô_ÔHobbsÔ_Ô€Lyle,€ChancellorÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„02652„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€22,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌÓ  ÓAppellant,€a€former€Metropolitan€Nashville€police€officer,€appeals€an€adverse€judgment€of€theÐ ŒÜ ÐChancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€wherein€that€court€affirmed€the€decision€of€the€MetropolitanÐ xÈ ÐCivil€Service€Commission€imposing€a€two„day€suspension€for€a€disciplinary€infraction.€€We€affirmÐ d´ Ðthe€trial€court.Ð P  ÐÓÓÔ#†¼[‰»XXa¿#ÔÔ‡XaX»¼[‰ÔÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ (x ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼[‰»àXaÑ#ÔÔ‡XaX.¼[‰ÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòóóWòòILLIAM€óó€C.€KòòOCH,€óóJòòRóó.,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,M.S.,Ð ì< Ðand€òòFrank€G.€Clement,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌÔ_ÔWorrickÔ_Ô€G.€Robinson,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Erik€Ô_ÔMaasikasÔ_Ô.Ð ° ÐÌÔ_ÔWmÔ_Ô.€Michael€Ô_ÔSafleyÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Metropolitan€Government€of€NashvilleÐ ˆØ Ðand€Davidson€County.Ð t Ä ÐÓÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼[‰»XXa®#ÔÔ‡XaX»¼[‰ÔÐ L"œ! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼[‰»XXaƒ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XaX»¼[‰Ôà  àErik€Ô_ÔMaasikasÔ_Ô€was€a€Metropolitan€Nashville€police€officer€from€November€1,€1994€until€hisÐ $$t# Ðtermination€on€January€12,€2000.Ð %` $ ÐÌà  àOn€December€8,€1999,€Donald€W.€Ô_ÔAdcoxÔ_Ô,€supervisor€of€patrolman€Ô_ÔMaasikasÔ_Ô,€filed€an€internalÐ è&8"& Ðincident€report€charging:Ð Ô'$#' ÐÌà8  àà ` àOfficer€Ô_ÔMaasikasÔ_Ô€turned€in€an€activity€sheet€for€11„14„99€with€missing€orÐ ¬)ü$) Ðincomplete€complaint€numbers.€€I€and€Lt.€Ô_ÔVonDohlenÔ_Ô€talked€to€him€and€told€him€weÐ ˜*è%* Ðexpected€his€activity€sheets€and€Ô_ÔtachsÔ_Ô€to€be€completed€correctly.€€On€Friday€11„26„99Ð „+Ô&+ ÐOfficer€Ô_ÔMaasikasÔ_Ô€turned€in€an€activity€sheet€and€tachograph€with€no€activity€recordedÐ p,À', Ðon€the€tachograph.€€His€explanation€(sic)€was€the€tach€door€came€open.€€On€FridayÐ \-¬(-ý  ÐÔ_ Ô12„03„99€Officer€Maasikas€turned€in€an€activity€sheet€for€11„28„99€with€no€tach€chartÐ ° Ðattached.€€His€explanation€(sic)€was€he€had€lost€it.ÐœìÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àSupervisor€Adcox€recommended€that€a€two€day€suspension€be€imposed€on€Officer€MaasikasÐ tÄ Ðfor€these€infractions,€and€this€recommendation€was€approved€by€reviewing€supervisors.€€OfficerÐ `° ÐMaasikas€declined€to€accept€the€two„day€suspension,€and,€in€February€2000,€a€disciplinary€hearingÐ L œ Ðwas€held€before€Chief€Emmet€Turner€and€other€members€of€the€Disciplinary€Board€of€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐMetropolitan€Police€Department.€€Following€this€hearing,€Maasikas€was€found€guilty€of€violatingÐ $ t ÐGeneral€Order€95„19„IV(r),€General€Order€97„15J(2)€and€Civil€Service€Rule€6.79(11)€involvingÐ  ` Ðtachograph€violation.€€Maasikas€received€a€two€day€suspension׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€promptly€appealed€to€theÐ ü L  ÐMetropolitan€Civil€Service€Commission.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€extensive€hearings€were€held€on€July€6,€August€11,€September€12€and€SeptemberÐ À  Ð22,€2000,€before€Administrative€Law€Judge€Ralph€B.€Christian,€II.€€The€Administrative€Law€JudgeÐ ¬ü  Ðupheld€the€two„day€suspension€for€the€tachograph€violation,€and,€in€a€final€order€entered€June€25,Ð ˜è  Ð2001,€the€Civil€Service€Commission€also€upheld€the€two„day€suspension.€€Maasikas€filed,€pursuantÐ „Ô  Ðto€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€4„5„322,€a€Petition€for€Judicial€Review€of€the€Civil€ServiceÐ pÀ ÐCommission€Final€Order.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€this€Petition€for€Judicial€Review,€Maasikas€alleges:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  à1.à0` Ð Ð àThe€Administrative€Judge€incorrectly€surmised€that€the€Grievantððs€actionsÐ  \ Ðwere€intentional,€not€mistakes€or€misfortunes€of€the€job€as€shown€by€theÐ øH Ðproof.Ðä4` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à2.à0` Ð Ð àThe€Administrative€Judge€incorrectly€suggests€and€presumes€that€theÐ Ð  Ðtachograph€was€functioning€properly€when€testimony€was€otherwise€present.м ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à3.à0` Ð Ð àThe€Administrative€Judge€incorrectly€considered€evidence€that€the€tachographÐ ¨ø Ðdisk€was€turned€in€to€cover€the€Grievantððs€alleged€absence€when€GrievantÐ ”ä Ðwas€not€charged€or€disciplined€for€absence.ЀÐ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à4.à0` Ð Ð àThe€Administrative€Judge€incorrectly€suggests€that€the€Grievant€had€been€lessÐ l¼ Ðthan€truthful€in€his€past€dealings€with€his€employer.ÐX ¨` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à5.à0` Ð Ð àThe€Administrative€Judge€failed€to€consider€proof€that€the€Grievant€wasÐ D!” Ðtreated€differently,€as€was€the€testimony€from€his€supervisor.Ð0"€ ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à6.à0` Ð Ð àThe€Administrative€Judge€placed€over€emphasis€on€the€Grievantððs€pastÐ #l! Ðemployment€record.€€While€his€past€employment€record€is€circumstantiallyÐ $X" Ðrelevant,€the€Grievant€was€never€disciplined€for€a€lost€tachograph.€€He€lostÐ ô$D # Ðone€tachograph€in€approximately€1995.€€Further,€he€was€never€disciplined€forÐ à%0!$ Ðany€problem€twice.ÐÌ&"%` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à7.à0` Ð Ð àThe€Administrative€Judgeððs€punishment€was€excessive€in€light€of€all€theÐ ° Ðfacts.Ðœì` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àWhile€this€two„day€suspension€is€the€subject€of€the€present€appeal,€this€two„day€suspensionÐ tÄ Ðis€but€the€catalyst€that€brought€about€his€termination€from€the€Metropolitan€Police€Department.€€TheÐ `° ÐMetropolitan€Charter,€section€12.05,€provides€that€a€civil€service€employee€cannot€be€suspendedÐ L œ Ðmore€than€thirty€days€during€a€twelve€month€period.€€Mr.€Maasikas,€on€February€11,€1999,€hadÐ 8 ˆ Ðreceived€a€two„day€suspension€for€failure€to€appear€in€court€and,€on€October€4,€1999,€had€receivedÐ $ t Ða€twenty„eight„day€suspension€for€filing€a€false€Off„Duty€Employment€Report,€violating€the€Off„DutyÐ  ` ÐEmployment€Regulations,€and€turning€in€a€tachograph€and€activity€sheet€indicating€that€he€hadÐ ü L  Ðceased€to€work€prior€to€the€end€of€the€work€shift€without€permission€to€leave€early.€€The€effect€of€theÐ è 8  Ðtwo„day€suspension€relative€to€the€tachograph€violation€in€issue€in€this€appeal€was€to€trigger€violationÐ Ô$  Ðof€the€thirty€day€suspension€rule€resulting€in€his€termination.Ð À  ÐÌà  àOn€April€30,€2002,€Chancellor€Ellen€Hobbs€Lyle€entered€a€Memorandum€and€OrderÐ ˜è  Ðupholding€the€two„day€suspension€given€by€the€Civil€Service€Commission.€€In€this€MemorandumÐ „Ô  Ðand€Order,€the€Chancellor€held€in€pertinent€part:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€Petitioner,€Erik€Maasikas,€began€employment€in€the€patrol€division€of€theÐ H˜ ÐMetropolitan€Police€Department€(ð ðDepartmentðð)€in€1994.€€During€his€tenure€with€theÐ 4„ ÐDepartment,€the€Petitioner€was€subject€to€discipline€on€seven€separate€occasions€priorÐ  p Ðto€the€incidents€giving€rise€to€this€matter.€€In€1996,€the€Petitioner€received€a€one„dayÐ  \ Ðsuspension€for€leaving€his€loaded€shotgun€unsecured€in€the€trunk€of€his€vehicle.€€AlsoÐ øH Ðin€1996,€the€Petitioner€received€a€mandatory€one„day€suspension€for€damage€done€toÐ ä4 Ða€police€car€when€his€parked€vehicle€rolled€backward€into€a€pole.€€In€December€ofÐ Ð  Ð1997,€the€Petitioner€received€a€one„day€suspension€and€a€year€of€probation€forÐ ¼  Ðleaving€his€zone€while€on€duty.€€Then,€in€April€of€1998,€the€Petitioner€received€a€two„Ð ¨ø Ðday€suspension€for€failing€to€complete€an€off„duty€employment€form€No.€150.€€Later,Ð ”ä Ðin€June€of€1998,€the€Petitioner€received€a€one„day€suspension€for€stating€that€he€couldÐ €Ð Ðnot€be€at€roll€call€because€he€was€at€the€Courthouse€when,€in€fact,€the€Petitioner€wasÐ l¼ Ðat€the€Courthouse€but€not€on€official€business.€€In€February€of€1999,€the€PetitionerÐ X ¨ Ðreceived€a€two„day€suspension€for€failing€to€appear€for€General€Sessions€Court€onÐ D!” Ðtwo€separate€occasions.€€In€October€of€1999,€the€Petitioner€received€a€twenty„eight„Ð 0"€  Ðday€suspension€for€filing€a€falsified€off„duty€employment€form€and€for€violating€theÐ #l! ÐDepartmentððs€twenty€percent€alcohol€exclusion€rule.Ð$X"Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€incidents€leading€up€to€the€suspension€in€the€case€at€bar€occurred€inÐ ô$D # ÐNovember€of€1999€when€the€Petitioner€returned€to€work€following€his€twenty„eight„Ð à%0!$ Ðday€suspension.€€On€November€26,€1999,€the€Petitioner€turned€in€an€activity€sheet€forÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€evening€of€November€25,€1999€with€a€blank€tachograph€attached€and€explainedÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€the€tachograph€door€had€popped€open.€€One€week€later,€on€December€3,€1999,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðthe€Petitioner€turned€in€an€activity€sheet€for€the€evening€of€November€28,€1999Ð )à$( Ðâ âwithout€attaching€a€tachograph€and€explained€that€the€tachograph€had€beenÐ |*Ì%) Ðinadvertently€discarded€by€a€car€wash€attendant€when€he€had€his€personal€vehicleÐ ° Ðcleaned.€€The€Petitioner€received€a€two„day€suspension.ÐœìÐ Ð  Ðâ âà8  àà ` àOn€April€12,€2001,€the€ALJ€issued€an€initial€order€upholding€the€PetitionerððsÐ ˆØ Ðtwo„day€suspension.€€The€initial€order€became€final€on€June€12,€2001€when€the€CivilÐ tÄ ÐService€Commission€voted€to€uphold€the€ALJððs€decision€and€a€final€order€wasÐ `° Ðentered€on€June€25,€2001.€€It€is€from€this€order€that€the€Petitioner€appeals.ÐL œÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€Petitioner€contends€that€the€Civil€Service€Commission€erred€inÐ  ` Ðdisregarding€the€following€facts:€€1)€police€officers€commonly€lose€tachographs;€2)Ð ü L  Ðthe€loss€of€a€tachograph€most€likely€will€not€result€in€a€suspension;€and€3)€theÐ è 8  ÐPetitioner€lost€only€one€tachograph€since€joining€the€Department€in€1994.€Ð Ô$  ÐConsequently,€the€Petitioner€contends€that€the€Commission€acted€arbitrarily€andÐ À  Ðcapriciously€in€taking€into€account€the€Petitionerððs€disciplinary€record€in€determiningÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€severity€of€the€Petitionerððs€punishment€for€violating€General€Order€No.€97„15,Ð ˜è  ÐSection€IX,€Part€(J)(2)€which€states,€in€pertinent€part:€Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àPersonnel€using€vehicles€with€tachographs€shall€adhere€to€theÐ \¬ Ðfollowing€provisions.€€Tachograph€charts€.€.€.€shall€be€turned€in€to€theÐ H˜ Ðsupervisor€at€the€beginning€of€the€next€shift€the€employee€works.€Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€General€Order€No.€97„15,€Section€IX,€Part€(J)(3)€states,€in€pertinent€part:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àSupervisors€may€initiate€corrective€and/or€disciplinary€action€for€violationsÐ ä4 Ðof€the€tachograph€policy,€if€warranted.ÐÐ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àCorrective€action,€according€to€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€andÐ ¨ø ÐDavidson€County€Civil€Service€Rule€6.3,€takes€the€form€of€a€written€or€oralÐ ”ä Ðreprimand€and€is€distinguished€from€the€disciplinary€actions€of€suspension,€demotionÐ €Ð Ðand€dismissal€set€forth€in€Civil€Service€Rule€6.5.€€Therefore,€pursuant€to€GeneralÐ l¼ ÐOrder€No.€97„15,€Section€IX,€Parts€(J)(2)€and€(3)€and€Civil€Service€Rule€6.5,€anÐ X ¨ Ðofficerððs€violation€of€the€Departmentððs€tachograph€policy,€if€warranted,€could€resultÐ D!” Ðin€the€supervisorððs€initiation€of€the€disciplinary€action€of€suspension.€€Likewise,€thereÐ 0"€  Ðis€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€the€Commission€lacks€the€authority€toÐ #l! Ðimpose€the€disciplinary€action€of€suspension€on€an€officer€for€violating€theÐ $X" ÐDepartmentððs€tachograph€policy.Ðô$D #Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àTherefore,€with€the€Commission€having€the€authority€to€impose€a€suspensionÐ à%0!$ Ðfor€the€violation€of€the€Departmentððs€tachograph€policy,€the€issue€is€whether€theÐ Ì&"% ÐCommission€acted€arbitrarily€and€capriciously€in€considering€the€PetitionerððsÐ ¸'#& Ðdisciplinary€record€as€its€basis€for€upholding€the€Petitionerððs€two„day€suspension.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐAlthough€the€Commission€made€findings€that€police€officers€commonly€loseÐ )à$( Ðtachographs€and,€most€likely,€will€not€be€subject€to€suspension€for€such€an€offense,Ð |*Ì%) Ðit€took€into€account€the€Petitionerððs€extensive€record€of€failing€to€followÐ h+¸&* ÐDepartmental€rules€and€procedures€in€imposing€the€disciplinary€action€of€suspension.€Ð ° ÐThe€Court€cannot€conclude€that€the€Commissionððs€analysis€is€one€that€is€not€basedÐ œì Ðon€any€course€of€reasoning€or€constitutes€a€clear€error€in€judgment.ЈØÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€Petitioner€offered€testimony€from€several€witnesses€that€the€standardÐ tÄ Ðpunishment€for€failing€to€turn€in€a€tachograph€is€the€corrective€action€of€an€oral€orÐ `° Ðwritten€reprimand.€€Despite€evidence€in€the€record€establishing€the€rarity€ofÐ L œ Ðdisciplinary€action€for€failing€to€turn€in€or€losing€a€tachograph,€the€Court€holds€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€Commission€has€the€authority€to€impose€the€disciplinary€action€of€suspension€forÐ $ t Ðviolation€of€General€Order€No.€97„15,€Section€IX,€Part€(J)(2).€€Likewise,€the€CourtÐ  ` Ðholds€that€the€Commission,€in€accordance€with€General€Order€No.€97„15,€Section€IX,Ð ü L  ÐPart€(J)(2),€Civil€Service€Rules€sections€6.3€and€6.5€and€the€doctrine€of€progressiveÐ è 8  Ðdiscipline,€as€codified€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€8„30„330,€retains€theÐ Ô$  Ðdiscretion€to€determine€the€appropriate€level€of€discipline.€€Therefore,€inÐ À  Ðconsideration€of€the€proscription€of€the€Court€to€substitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðagency,€in€consideration€of€the€Commissionððs€authority€to€impose€the€disciplinaryÐ ˜è  Ðaction€of€suspension€for€violating€the€Departmentððs€tachograph€policy€and€inÐ „Ô  Ðconsideration€of€the€Petitionerððs€recurring€disciplinary€issues,€the€Court€finds€that€theÐ pÀ ÐPetitioner€has€failed€to€prove€that€the€decision€below€is€one€that€is€not€based€on€anyÐ \¬ Ðcourse€of€reasoning€or€exercise€of€judgment,€or€one€that€disregards€the€facts€orÐ H˜ Ðcircumstances€of€the€case€without€some€basis€that€would€lead€a€reasonable€person€toÐ 4„ Ðreach€the€same€conclusion.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThereafter,€Appellant€filed€a€Motion€for€a€New€Hearing€based€essentially€upon€the€alleged€Ð øH Ðapplicability€of€the€Doctrine€of€Progressive€Discipline€codified€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ ä4 Ð8„30„330.€€This€Motion€was€overruled€by€Order€of€September€20,€2002,€providing€in€pertinent€part:Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€record€established€that€the€petitioner€had€multiple€disciplinary€matters.€€Prior€toÐ ¨ø Ðthe€tachograph€incidents,€the€petitioner€was€subject€to€discipline€on€seven€occasions.€Ð ”ä ÐThe€incidents€included€leaving€his€loaded€shotgun€unsecured€in€the€trunk€of€hisÐ €Ð Ðvehicle€and€two€incidents€of€failing€to€complete€department€forms€and€two€incidentsÐ l¼ Ðof€not€being€present€where€he€was€suppose€to€be.€ÐX ¨Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àCertainly€if€the€Commission€did€not€believe€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€theÐ D!” Ðtachograph€incidents€were€negligent€and€instead€concluded€that€the€tachographÐ 0"€  Ðfailures€were€orchestrated€by€the€petitioner€to€cover€up€not€being€on€duty,€the€two„dayÐ #l! Ðsuspension€is€unquestionably€reasonable.€€Unfortunately€the€Commission€did€notÐ $X" Ðstate€its€assessment€of€the€petitionerððs€credibility.€€But€even€if€it€is€assumed€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðtachograph€incidents€were€caused€merely€by€petitionerððs€neglect,€nevertheless€theÐ à%0!$ Ðtwo„day€suspension€is€reasonable€in€light€of€the€petitionerððs€disciplinary€record.€ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€theory€of€progressive€discipline€and€sanctions€for€multiple€offenders€isÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€even€if€the€subsequent€offenses€are€lesser,€those€offenses€carry€heavierÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconsequences€because€the€offenderððs€conduct€continues€to€be€deficient€and€priorÐ )à$( Ðâ âdiscipline€has€not€worked€to€prevent€poor€conduct.€€For€this€reason€a€subsequentÐ |*Ì%) Ðoffense,€even€lesser,€can€not€be€considered€in€the€vacuum€of€the€circumstances€of€thatÐ ° Ðone€offense€where€the€offender€has€a€record€of€offenses.ÐœìÐ Ð  Ðâ âà8  àà ` àThe€case€at€bar€is€one€where€the€tachograph€incidentsð!ðeven€if€negligentð!ðallowÐ ˆØ Ðfor€heavier€penalties€because€of€the€history€and€record€of€prior€offenses.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€familiar€standard€of€review€in€this€Court€is€provided€by€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ L œ Ðsection€4„5„322(h)(2001).€€Under€this€standard,€this€Court€is€not€allowed€to€consider€this€matter€òòdeÐ 8 ˆ Ðnovoóó,€but€may€reverse€or€modify€the€decisions€of€the€Civil€Service€Commission€only€if€they€are€ð ð(1)Ð $ t ÐIn€violation€of€constitutional€or€statutory€provisions;€(2)€In€excess€of€the€statutory€authority€of€theÐ  ` Ðagency;€(3)€Made€upon€unlawful€procedure;€(4)€Arbitrary€or€capricious€or€characterized€by€abuse€ofÐ ü L  Ðdiscretion€or€clearly€unwarranted€exercise€of€discretion,€or€(5)€Unsupported€by€evidence€which€isÐ è 8  Ðboth€substantial€and€material€in€the€light€of€the€entire€record.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àThis€Court€must€refrain€from€substituting€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€Civil€ServiceÐ ¬ü  ÐCommission.€€òòMcCallen€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€786€S.W.2d€633,€641€(Tenn.1990).€€It€cannot€be€saidÐ ˜è  Ðthat€the€Administrative€Law€Judge€did€not€analyze€and€re„analyze€the€extensive€testimonial€recordÐ „Ô  Ðin€this€case,€the€exhibits€filed€by€the€parties,€and€the€law€controlling€the€case.€€He€carefullyÐ pÀ Ðconsidered€the€past€disciplinary€record€of€Appellant€in€reaching€his€conclusion€to€uphold€the€two„dayÐ \¬ Ðsuspension.€The€Administrative€Law€Judge€stated€in€part:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àGrievantððs€arguments€would€be€well€received€if€he€had€a€pristine€employment€record.€Ð  p ÐHowever,€the€record€is€replete€with€his€past€failure€to€follow€police€department€rulesÐ  \ Ðand€procedures.€€Moreover,€the€record€suggests€that€the€tachograph€was€not€turned„inÐ øH Ðto€cover€his€absence€at€the€end€of€a€shift.€€The€record€also€reflects€that€Grievant€hasÐ ä4 Ðbeen€less€than€truthful€in€his€past€dealings€with€his€employer.€€Grievant€must€bear€theÐ Ð  Ðburden€of€his€employment€record.€€He€is€ultimately€responsible€for€providing€theÐ ¼  Ðdepartment€with€tachographs€and€activity€reports.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðtachographs€were€faulty.€€Grievant€negligently€left€a€tachograph€in€his€vehicle€andÐ ”ä Ðexposed€it€to€callous€discard€by€a€car€wash€attendant.€€The€loss€of€the€tachograph€wasÐ €Ð ÐGrievantððs€responsib[ili]ty€(sic),€not€the€departmentððs.€€The€police€department€warnedÐ l¼ Ðand€counseled€Grievant€following€his€28„day€suspension€to€follow€the€departmentððsÐ X ¨ Ðrules€and€procedures.€€He€chose€to€disregard€their€counsel.€€Given€the€totality€of€theÐ D!” Ðcircumstances,€the€department€has€shown€remarkable€restraint.€€The€two„dayÐ 0"€  Ðsuspension€is€upheld.Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAs€both€the€Administrative€Law€Judge€and€the€Chancellor€observed,€we€are€not€concernedÐ ô$D # Ðin€this€case€with€the€discharge€from€employment€of€Mr.€Maasikas.€€We€are€only€concerned€withÐ à%0!$ Ðwhether€or€not€the€two„day€suspension€for€the€tachograph€violations€is€arbitrary€and€capricious€orÐ Ì&"% Ðnot€supported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àFrom€the€opening€statement€before€the€Administrative€Law€Judge,€it€is€conceded€byÐ )à$( ÐMetropolitan€Government€that€the€tachograph€violation€standing€alone€would€be€insufficient€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðjustify€the€two„day€suspension.€€The€appeal€must€then€stand€or€fall€on€the€admissibility€of€Mr.Ð h+¸&* ÐMaasikasðð€past€disciplinary€record€and€the€use€of€that€record€to€enhance€the€penalty€for€theÐ ° Ðtachograph€violation.€€Appellant€concedes€the€admissibility€but€questions€the€use€of€the€disciplinaryÐ œì Ðrecord€for€enhancement€purposes.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€Supreme€Court€of€Pennsylvania€addressed€this€question€in€òòIn€Re:€€Ditkoððs€Appealóó,€123Ð `° ÐA.2d€718€(Pa.1956).€€In€that€case,€the€police€officer€was€charged€with€two€counts€of€conductÐ L œ Ðunbecoming€a€police€officer,€with€the€first€count€charging€such€violation€August€29,€1954€and€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðsecond€count€charging€a€similar€violation€on€December€20,€1953.€€As€to€the€December€20,€1953Ð $ t Ðincident,€the€officer€had€previously€been€warned,€reprimanded€and€suspended€for€a€period€of€fiveÐ  ` Ðdays.€€Said€the€court:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€incident€relating€to€conduct€unbecoming€a€police€officer€set€forth€in€theÐ Ô$  Ðsecond€charge€resulted€in€appellantððs€being€warned,€reprimanded€and€suspendedÐ À  Ðwithout€pay€by€his€superior€officers€for€a€period€of€five€days.€€Were€this€the€onlyÐ ¬ü  Ðcharge€considered€by€Council€and€established€under€the€evidence,€we€would€hesitateÐ ˜è  Ðin€finding€that€appellant€was€properly€discharged.€€It€is€apparent€that€for€the€offenseÐ „Ô  Ðin€question€appellant€has€already€been€punished,€and€it€would€offend€against€ourÐ pÀ Ðconcept€of€justice€that€a€year€thereafter€appellant€could€be€subjected€to€the€penalty€ofÐ \¬ Ðdismissal€after€having€previously€been€suspended€for€his€actions.€€The€service€recordÐ H˜ Ðof€appellant€showing€prior€misconduct€and€suspension€is€relevant€and€admissible,Ð 4„ Ðhowever,€in€so€far€as€it€may€relate€to€proper€punishment€in€the€event€appellant€isÐ  p Ðguilty€of€the€misconduct€alleged€in€the€first€charge:€€òòPoerio€Appealóó,€3€Pa.Dist.€&Ð  \ ÐCo.2d€79;€òòIn€re€Brosious€Appealóó,€22€Northumb.L.J.€193.€€It€would€appear€thatÐ øH Ðappellant€accepted€without€question€the€punishment€meted€to€him€by€his€superiorsÐ ä4 Ðfor€the€act€of€misconduct€alleged€in€the€second€charge,€and€in€our€opinion€thatÐ Ð  Ðincident€thereafter€was€closed€and€is€only€relevant€in€the€matter€of€determining€whatÐ ¼  Ðpunishment€is€merited€for€offenses€subsequent€thereto.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌòòIn€Re:€€Ditkoððs€Appealóó,€123€A.2d€at€720.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àPennsylvania€has,€likewise,€held€that€a€previous€disciplinary€record€cannot€be€resurrected€and€Ð X ¨ Ðused€in€the€absence€of€a€present€new€offense€in€order€to€discipline€an€employee€anew.€€€ð ðThe€elementÐ D!” Ðof€safeguarding€fairness,€implicit€in€òòDitkoóó,€is€that,€after€an€employee€has€accepted€one€or€moreÐ 0"€  Ðsummary€punishments,€he€should€not€be€subjected€to€the€resurrection€and€aggregation€of€those€sameÐ #l! Ðinfractions€as€the€sole€basis€for€enlarged€punishment.ðð€€òòSiler€v.€City€of€Harrisburgóó,€422€A.2d€704,Ð $X" Ð706€(Pa.Commw.Ct.1980).Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àIn€a€similar€context,€the€Court€of€Appeals€of€Louisiana€held:Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà8  àà ` àAppellant€was€not€dismissed€because€of€this€incident€alone€but€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconsideration€of€his€past€record€which€showed€that€he€was€disciplined€five€times€forÐ )à$( Ðfailing€to€obey€his€foremen€in€two€years€preceding€the€present€incident,€in€the€yearÐ |*Ì%) Ð1985€he€was€absent€25€days€5€hours€without€pay€and€was€twice€placed€on€probationÐ h+¸&* Ðfor€bad€attendance,€and€he€was€twice€found€to€be€negligent€in€caring€for€cityÐ ° Ðequipment.€€In€upholding€appellantððs€dismissal€the€commission€remarked:€€ð ðIn€viewÐ œì Ðof€the€poor€employment€history€of€appellant,€we€cannot€say€that€dismissal€in€this€caseÐ ˆØ Ðwas€inappropriate.ðð€€He€contends€that€the€appointing€authority€was€estopped€fromÐ tÄ Ðreviving€these€old€incidents€as€grounds€for€further€disciplinary€measures€because€heÐ `° Ðwas€already€disciplined€for€these€infractions.€€In€support€of€this€contention€he€reliesÐ L œ Ðon€òòDepartment€of€Public€Safety€v.€Rigbyóó,€401€So.2d€1017€(La.App.€1st€Cir.1981).€€Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àAn€employee€cannot€be€disciplined€a€second€time€for€the€same€offense,€butÐ  ` Ðprevious€offenses€and€the€penalties€may€be€considered€in€determining€what€is€theÐ ü L  Ðappropriate€penalty€for€a€subsequent€offense.€€It€would€be€nonsensical€for€theÐ è 8  Ðappointing€authority€to€be€prohibited€from€considering€that€this€appellant€wasÐ Ô$  Ðdisciplined€five€times€previously€for€the€same€type€of€misconduct€as€he€committedÐ À  Ðin€this€case€as€well€as€on€four€other€occa[]sions€(sic)€and€that€the€previous€relativelyÐ ¬ü  Ðslight€penalties€imposed€upon€him€had€little€if€any€deterrent€or€rehabilitative€effectÐ ˜è  Ðon€him.€€The€Commission€was€correct€in€considering€appellantððs€entire€record€inÐ „Ô  Ðdetermining€that€dismissal€was€appropriate.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòLondon€v.€Parkway€and€Park€Commððnóó,€503€So.2d€556,€557€(La.Ct.App.1987);€òòsee€also€Jarrett€v.Ð H˜ ÐCapital€Area€Legal€Servs.€Corp.,€Inc.óó,€763€S.2d€698€(La.Ct.App.2000).Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€past€disciplinary€record€of€Mr.€Maasikas€was€properly€used€to€enhance€theÐ  \ Ðpenalty€for€conduct€which,€in€the€absence€of€such€a€disciplinary€record,€would€probably€have€meritedÐ øH Ða€reprimand.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIt€is€also€well€to€note€that,€from€the€day€Mr.€Maasikas,€his€attorney€and€Chief€Emmet€TurnerÐ ¼  Ðagreed€on€the€28„day€suspension€of€October€4,€1999,€Mr.€Maasikas€knew€what€was€going€to€happenÐ ¨ø Ðif€he€had€further€disciplinary€problems.Ð ”ä ÐÌà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àSpecifically€looking€at€the€most€recent€prior€to€this,€which€apparentlyÐ l¼ Ðtook€place€on€October€4€of€1999,€it€indicates€that€he€was€suspended€for€28€days;€isÐ X ¨ Ðthat€correct?€ÐD!”Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à0¸ Ð Ð àThat€is€correct.Ð0"€ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àNow,€in€that€regard,€let€me€pass€to€you€whatððs€been€identified€asÐ #l! ÐExhibit€9.€€When€you€suspended€Mr.€Maasikas€on€this€particular€occasion€for€28Ð $X" Ðdays,€did€you€give€him€any€warning?Ðô$D #Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ àYes,€I€did.€€That€was€in€a€letter€dated€October€4th,€1999.Ðà%0!$¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à0¸ Ð Ð àWhat€did€you€tell€Mr.€Maasikas?ÐÌ&"%¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àIððll€read€just€the€last€part.€€It€says,€ð ðThis€suspension,€along€with€aÐ ¸'#& Ðprevious€two„day€suspension,€is€the€maximum€number€of€days€an€employee€may€beÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsuspended€within€the€12„month€period.€€You€have€acknowledged€that€you€understandÐ )à$( Ðthat€any€other€disciplinary€action€resulting€in€a€suspension€within€this€12„monthÐ |*Ì%) Ðperiod€would€result€in€termination.ððÐh+¸&*Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àQ.à0 ¸ àYou€told€him€that€on€that€occasion?а¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ àYes,€I€did.Ðœì¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àWere€you€satisfied€that€he€understood€what€the€gravity€of€the€situationÐ ˆØ Ðwas?ÐtÄÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ àYes,€sir,€I€believe€that€he€fully€understood.Ð`°¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àNow,€you€set€out€in€there€that€the€most€you€can€have€of€a€suspensionÐ L œ Ðwithin€a€12„month€period€is€30€days.€€Is€that,€in€fact,€pursuant€to€the€MetropolitanÐ 8 ˆ ÐCharter?Ð$ tÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ àYes,€it€is.Ð `¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8  àà ` àQà ¸ àIððll€pass€to€you€whatððs€identified€as€Exhibit€14.€€Is€that€the€provision€Ð ü L  Ðof€the€Metropolitan€Charter€which€provides€that€30€days€is€to€be€the€most€thatÐ è 8  Ðsomeone€can€be€suspended€within€a€12„month€period?ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ àYes,€it€is.ÐÀ ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àDid€that€particular€provision€play€a€part€in€the€ultimate€termination€ofÐ ¬ü  ÐMr.€Maasikas€in€reference€to€this€charge?Иè Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ àYes,€it€did.€Ð„Ô ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination€of€Chief€Turner€by€the€attorney€representing€Officer€Maasikas,€theÐ \¬ Ðrecord€discloses:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àChief,€you€alluded€to€the€28„day€suspension€that€Officer€Maasikas€wasÐ  p Ðgiven€back€in,€I€guess€that€was,€October€of€1999.€€You€and€I€had€a€lengthyÐ  \ Ðconversation€in€your€office€prior€to€that€board€hearing,€did€we€not?ÐøHÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ àThatððs€correct.Ðä4¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àà ` àQ.à0 ¸ àAbout€this€disciplinary€matter?ÐÐ ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ àRightм ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àAnd€the€decision€was€whether€or€not€you€were€going€to€give€him€„€„Ð ¨ø Ðas€far€as€there€being€some€type€of€arrangement€without€having€a€hearing,€it€was€eitherÐ ”ä Ð28€days€or€fire€him,€was€it€not?€€That€as€the€dilemma?ЀÐÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ àThat€was€the€offer€that€you€made,€I€believe.Ðl¼¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àà ` àQ.à0 ¸ àAnd€thatððs€what€you€accepted,€right?ÐX ¨¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àà ` àA.à0 ¸ à(No€response.)ÐD!”¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àà ` àQ.à0 ¸ àAnd€we€did€not€have€a€hearing€on€that,€did€we?Ð0"€ ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àà ` àAà0 ¸ àNo,€we€did€not.Ð#l!¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àà ` àQ.à0 ¸ àOkay.Ð$X"¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8  àà ` àA.à0¸ Ð Ð àMay€I€allude€a€little€further€on€this€answer?Ðô$D #¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àQ.à0 ¸ àYes,€sir,€you€may.Ðà%0!$¸ (#¸ (# Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àI€think,€Counselor,€you€and€I€are€both€aware€that€on€that€particularÐ Ì&"% Ðday,€in€the€presence€of€Officer€Maasikas,€we€both€gave€him€the€benefit€of€the€doubt,Ð ¸'#& Ðand€I€think€you€and€I€both€talked€to€him€about€what€was€expected€of€him€when€heÐ ¤(ô#' Ðreturned€to€work.€€I€think€you€are€aware€of€the€fact€that€we€both€talked€to€him€and,Ð )à$( ÐI€think,€very€vividly€explained€to€him€what€our€expectations€were€in€the€policeÐ |*Ì%) Ðdepartment€when€he€returned.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àQ.à ¸ àYes,€sir.€€With€regard€to€his€coming€back€and€that€conversation,€Chief,Ð ° ÐI€expressed€some€concern€to€you€that€he€would€not€have€the€luxury€of€having€a€singleÐ œì Ðday€to€give€up€in€the€disciplinary€matter€in€the€event€something€happened,€and€at€theÐ ˆØ Ðtime,€the€department€was€giving€one„day€suspensions€for€wrecks€in€patrol€vehicles,Ð tÄ Ðwas€it€not?Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA.à ¸ àYeah.€€And€I€think€I€even€told€you€if€that€did€happen,€that€we€wouldÐ L œ Ðtry€to€deal€with€that,€that€we€wanted€to€give€him€the€benefit€of€the€doubt.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àUnder€the€standard€of€review€binding€upon€this€Court€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ  ` Ð4„5„322(h),€we€can€see€no€basis€for€disturbing€the€decision€of€the€Civil€Service€Commission.€€TheÐ ü L  Ðjudgment€of€the€chancellor€is€affirmed.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àCosts€of€this€cause€are€assessed€to€Appellant,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€chancery€court.Ð À  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE