Farrell v. Mayor City Revere

QUA, Justice. The purpose of this petition is to review the action of the mayor on June 1, 1939, purporting to remove the petitioner from the office of auditor of the city under the authority of section 31 of the city charter (St.1914, c. 687). Section 31 reads as follows: 'The mayor may, in writing, suspend any executive or appointive officer or any public work, and in such case he shall at once report his action and his reasons therefor to the council. The suspension of any such officer shall, in fifteen days after such report is made, be a removal, unless within that time he asks for a hearing before the mayor and the council, which shall forthwith be granted and be public; and upon the Conclusion of such hearing, if the mayor shall determine that the suspension be not sustained, the officer shall at once be reinstated. Public work suspended by the mayor may be carried on at his discretion until action is taken by the council. If the council within fifteen days after receiving a report shall determine by a vote of two thirds of its members that the mayor's action suspending the work be not sustained, the work shall be prosecuted forthwith.' It appears from the respondent's return that on April 27 the respondent suspended the petitioner for reasons stated by him and at once reported his action and his reasons therefor to the council; that upon a seasonable request by the petitioner for a public hearing before the mayor and the council, the respondent on May 12 notified the petitioner that such hearing would be granted on May 16 at 2 p. m.; that on the same day he notified the members of the council individually that the hearing would be held at his office at the time stated and directed them to appear 'as provided by Section 31 of the Revere City Charter'; that the hearing was held at the time and place assigned before the respondent and two members of the council who attended; that the petitioner was present and requested that the hearing be 'dismissed as not in accordance with the provisions of the city charter in that it was not a hearing before the Mayor and the city council'; that this objection was overruled, and that the hearing proceeded. It further appears that after the removal of the petitioner one Burke was 'duly appointed' auditor to fill the vacancy.