Moore found him at a local bar laughing and talking, with a drink in front of him, his hair somewhat disheveled, and his arm around a companion. In the early afternoon of June 26, Bernard Moore, who succeeded Green as district administrator, attempted but without success to see petitioner in the latter's office. Petitioner declined to do so and Green admonished him that further violations of work rules would result in disciplinary action and even dismissal. Green then suggested that petitioner, for his own convenience, change from full-time to part-time status at an adjusted compensation. Green responded that on the day in question he had observed the doctor drinking and talking at a restaurant and bar. When asked why he had taken 35 extra minutes for lunch that day, petitioner claimed to be sick. Green again met with petitioner on March 16 in an effort to resolve the problem. He took lengthy lunch breaks on March 13, 14, 15 and 16. On March 3, 1972, Gerald Green, then district administrator, and Doris Soderberg, regional administrator, met with petitioner and discussed his refusal to obey work rules, but apparently to no avail. This punitive action had little effect on petitioner who continued to take excessive lunch periods. Nevertheless, despite further warnings given petitioner and efforts made to accommodate him by extending his lunch break from the usual 45 minutes to one hour, he persisted in his unexplained absences and failure to observe work hours and as a result on February 28, 1972, received a letter of reprimand and a one-day suspension. The doctor was admonished to comply with pertinent Department rules and regulations. This meeting was held at the insistence of several staff members who had complained to Philippe about petitioner's conduct. Their testimony was corroborated in part by written documents from the Department files, and disclosed the following facts: Philippe met with petitioner on November 17, 1970, to discuss the latter's unexcused absences, apparent drinking on the job and failure to comply with Department work hour requirements. Moore, three successive district administrators of the Department's Sacramento office to which petitioner had been assigned. On July 12, 1972, petitioner filed an answer, and on September 15, 1972, a hearing was held before an authorized representative of the Board.ДЄt the hearing, the Department introduced the testimony of Philip L. 4 It further described petitioner's alleged acts and omissions which formed the basis of these charges, and notified him that to secure a hearing in the matter, he would be required to file a written answer with the Board within 20 days, and that in the event of his failure to do so, the punitive action would be final. The notice specified three causes for the dismissal: (1) Intemperance, (2) inexcusable absence without leave, and (3) other failure of good behavior during duty hours which caused discredit to the Department. 3 About that time the Department, through its personnel officer Wade Williams, gave petitioner written notice that he was terminated from his position as medical consultant, effective 5 p.m., July 11, 1972. 2 He held that position for about seven years and was a permanent civil service employee of the state. In July 1972 petitioner was employed by the Department as a medical consultant.

1 In challenging his removal, petitioner asserts, among other things, that California's statutory scheme regulating the taking of punitive action against permanent civil service employees violates the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, sections 7 and 15, of the California Constitution. (hereafter petitioner) appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate to compel defendants State Personnel Board (Board) and its members to set aside his allegedly wrongful dismissal from employment by the State Department of Health Care Services (Department). Primes, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent. Link for Plaintiff and Appellant.Д®velle J. Opinion by Sullivan, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.) STATE PERSONNEL BOARD et al., Defendants and Respondents

Spb ca