Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn., 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006). The role of the Commission is to determine "whether the appointing authority has sustained its burden of proving that there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority." Cambridge at 304, See also City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass.App. Ct. 726, 728, rev. den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003); Police Dept. of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006) and cases cited; Volpicelli v. City of Woburn, 22 MCSR 448 (2009); Williamson v.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). 7 The issue for the Commission is "not whether it would have acted as the appointing authority had acted, but whether, on the facts found by the commission, there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority in the circumstances found by the commission to have existed when the Appointing Authority made its decision." Watertown v.

Unless the Commissions findings of fact differ significantly from those reported by the appointing authority or interpret the relevant law in a substantially different way, the commission is not free to substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority, and cannot modify a penalty on the basis of essentially similar fact finding without an adequate explanation E.g., Town of Falmouth v. Civ. Serv. Commn, 10 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006).

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). 8 The DOC has demonstrated that it had sound and sufficient reasons or just cause to suspend the Appellant due to his actions on September 28, 2004. See eg. Commissioners of Civ. Serv. v. Mun. Ct. of Boston, 359 Mass. 211, 214 (1971); Cambridge v. Civ. Serv. Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997); Selectmen of Wakefield v.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). The issue for the Commission is "not whether it would have acted as the Appointing Authority had acted, but whether, on the facts found by the commission, there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority in the circumstances found by the commission to have existed when the Appointing Authority made its decision." Watertown v.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). The issue for the Commission is "not whether it would have acted as the appointing authority had acted, but whether, on the facts found by the commission, there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority in the circumstances found by the commission to have existed when the Appointing Authority made its decision." Watertown v.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823, 857 N.E.2d 1053, 1059 (2006) and cases cited. Here, the Commission finds no evidence that Appellants performance evaluation was not done in adherence with basic merit principles, or was made in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

As the Appeals Court declared in Town of Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn., 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800, 814 N.E.2d 735, 738-739 (2004), [t]he issue for the commission is not whether it would have acted as the appointing authority had acted, but whether, on the facts found by the commission, there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority. ... (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Mr.

Town of Falmouth y. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 196, 300 (2004), _The issue for the Commission is not whether it would have acted as the appointing authority had acted, but whether, on the facts found by the commission, there-was reasonable justification -for the action taken by the appointing authority in the circumstances found by the commission to have existed when the appointing authority made its decision. 331, 334 (1983). .