AKMAL AQUIL, CSC Docket No. 2024-334

BackgroundThe appeals of Akmal Aquil, Laborer 1, Newark, Department of Water and Sewer, 15, 20, 25 and 30 working day suspensions, on charges, were heard by Administrative Law Judge Daniel J. Brown (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on March 17, 2025. No exceptions were filed.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ's initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on April 30, 2025, adopted the ALJ's Findings of Facts and Conclusions. Additionally, it adopted his recommendation to affirm the 15 working day suspension. However, it did not adopt his recommendations to modify each of the 20, 25 and 30 working day suspensions to 15 working day suspensions. Rather, the Commission upheld the 20, 25 and 30 working day suspensions.

Regarding the penalties, the Commission's review is de novo. In addition to its consideration of the seriousness of the underlying incident in determining the proper penalty, the Commission also utilizes, when appropriate, the concept of progressive discipline. West New York v. Bock, 38 N.J. 500 (1962). In determining the propriety of the penalty, several factors must be considered, including the nature of the appellant's offense, the concept of progressive discipline, and the employee's prior record. George v. North Princeton Developmental Center, 96 N.J.A.R. 2d (CSV) 463. However, it is well established that where the underlying conduct is of an egregious nature, the imposition of a penalty up to and including removal is appropriate, regardless of an individual's disciplinary history. See Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (1980). It is settled that the theory of progressive discipline is not a "fixed and immutable rule to be followed without question." Rather, it is recognized that some disciplinary infractions are so serious that removal is appropriate