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 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.

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.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 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 appomting authority made its decision. Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass. App.

See also Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 826-27 (2006) (negative inference may be drawn against the appellant when he claimed 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify at a disciplinary hearing before the Appointing Authority) In addition, there were also two other assault and battery charges that occurred later in the evening outside of nightclub/bar venues.

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, 801 (2000). The role of the Civil Service 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. City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997).

Town of Falmouth y. Civil Service Commn, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004); Town of Watertown, 16 Mass. App. Ct. at 334.

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.