B-134409, DEC. 27, 1957
Highlights
THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE SERVICE AND DURING WHICH TIME NO SERVICES ARE RENDERED IS THE ACT OF JUNE 10. WHICH THE RECORD INDICATES YOU HAVE DONE. HE MUST BE REINSTATED OR RESTORED UPON THE GROUND THAT SUCH REMOVAL WAS UNJUSTIFIED OR UNWARRANTED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN RESTORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOREGOING ACT. CONCERNING THE CLAIM FOR BACK PAY IS SUSTAINED. YOU ARE ADVISED THAT WHERE A CONFLICT EXISTS ACCOUNTING OFFICERS MUST ACCEPT FACTS ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED RATHER THAN SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS OF CLAIMANTS IN SETTLING SUCH CLAIMS. IS ALSO SUSTAINED. ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THE ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN COST OF THE METER AND THE AMOUNT YOU WERE REQUIRED TO PAY THEREFOR SHOULD BE TAKEN UP WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.
B-134409, DEC. 27, 1957
TO MR. FRANK M. DEFINO:
YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 2, 1957, AND AN UNDATED LETTER RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE ON NOVEMBER 21, 1957, FROM YOU, IN EFFECT, REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 31, 1957. THE SETTLEMENT DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $150,000 REPRESENTING SALARY BECAUSE OF ALLEGED ILLEGAL REMOVAL FROM YOUR POSITION WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ON JUNE 28, 1957, AS WELL AS YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE $52 DEDUCTED FROM YOUR PAY TO COVER THE LOSS OF AN ELECTRIC VOLT METER.
AS POINTED OUT IN OUR SETTLEMENT, THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE SERVICE AND DURING WHICH TIME NO SERVICES ARE RENDERED IS THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1948, AMENDING THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912, 5 U.S.C. 652. THAT ACT PROVIDES THREE CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE MET BEFORE THE RIGHTS THEREUNDER VEST. FIRST, THE EMPLOYEE MUST BE REMOVED, WHICH ACTION OCCURRED IN YOUR CASE. THEN HE MUST MAKE ANSWER TO THE CHARGES, OR APPEAL TO PROPER AUTHORITY, WHICH THE RECORD INDICATES YOU HAVE DONE. THIRD, HE MUST BE REINSTATED OR RESTORED UPON THE GROUND THAT SUCH REMOVAL WAS UNJUSTIFIED OR UNWARRANTED. IN YOUR CASE, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN RESTORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOREGOING ACT. THEREFORE, OUR OFFICE HAS NO BASIS UPON WHICH TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM FOR BACK PAY SINCE SUCH PAYMENTS CAN BE MADE BY US ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, OUR SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 31, 1957, CONCERNING THE CLAIM FOR BACK PAY IS SUSTAINED.
CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE $52 COLLECTED FROM YOU IN PAYMENT FOR THE LOST PROPERTY REFERRED TO ABOVE, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT WHERE A CONFLICT EXISTS ACCOUNTING OFFICERS MUST ACCEPT FACTS ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED RATHER THAN SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS OF CLAIMANTS IN SETTLING SUCH CLAIMS. HENCE, SINCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT SHOWS THAT THE LOSS OF THE PROPERTY RESULTED FROM YOUR NEGLIGENCE, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE REFUND MAY NOT BE PAID TO YOU. THEREFORE, THAT PART OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 31, 1957, IS ALSO SUSTAINED.
ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THE ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN COST OF THE METER AND THE AMOUNT YOU WERE REQUIRED TO PAY THEREFOR SHOULD BE TAKEN UP WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT IF YOU WERE REQUIRED TO PAY MORE THAN WAS REQUIRED THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO ADJUST THE MATTER.
OUR OFFICE HAS NO JURISDICTION CONCERNING THE EFFICIENCY RATINGS GIVEN YOU, OR THE FAILURES TO PROMOTE YOU, OR WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS THAT YOU MENTION IN YOUR LETTERS AND SUCH MATTERS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF YOUR CLAIMS.