ILNews

IDEM could fire employee for ethics violation

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state's Ethics Commission correctly concluded an Indiana Department of Environmental Management employee violated a provision of the ethics code when he bought gas with a state-issued credit card at a gas station he partly owned. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today the amount of restitution the commission ordered him to pay wasn't supported by the evidence, so additional findings are necessary.

In Subhen Ghosh v. Indiana State Ethics Commission and the Office of the Inspector General, No. 32A01-0812-CV-601, Subhen Ghosh appealed the trial court's decision he was collaterally estopped from seeking reinstatement of his employment and the monetary sanction imposed by the Ethics Commission. IDEM dismissed Ghosh after discovering the misuse of his credit card; the State Employee Appeals Commission affirmed his dismissal, which was also affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Ethics Commission investigated and sanctioned him to reimburse the department $456.96.

Ghosh appealed the Ethics Commission's decision, asking to be reinstated.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that Ghosh was collaterally estopped from asking for reinstatement because that issue had already been litigated during the Appeals Commission proceeding. The procedures outlined in Indiana Code Sections 4-15-2-34, -35, and -35.5 foreclose Ghosh's arguments that IDEM lacked authority to dismiss him for a violation of the Ethics Code and that the Appeals Commission lacked jurisdiction to review such a dismissal, wrote Judge Margret Robb.

Despite Ghosh's arguments, LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. 2000), doesn't control the outcome in the instant case because the facts are substantially different and the case was decided prior to the amendments to the State Personnel Act, which required the Appeals Commission to review the propriety of a dismissal by the Ethics Commission for an ethics code violation, she wrote.

The Ethics Commission was able to sanction Ghosh based on I.C. 4-2-6-9(a). Ghosh argued the commission's interpretation was unreasonable because he didn't "participate in any decision" by using the credit card because participate implies more than one person is involved in the decision. Even though his argument of the meaning of participate is consistent in legal and general dictionaries, the appellate court rejected his argument.

"Because Ghosh unilaterally decided to use a state-issued credit card at a gas station in which he had a financial interest, he went well beyond the minimum of mere participation," she wrote. "Moreover, adopting Ghosh's interpretation would permit any single person to avoid violating the statute simply on the ground that the person acted alone."

The Court of Appeals found the monetary sanction to be unsupported by the evidence and remanded to the Ethics Commission to either make additional findings explaining how the sanction is consistent with I.C. 4-2-6-12(1) or to fashion a sanction that is consistent with the statute and supported by the evidence in the record.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Should be beat this rap, I would not recommend lion hunting in Zimbabwe to celebrate.

  2. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  3. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  4. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  5. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

ADVERTISEMENT