About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-107081 1 (1980-01-22)

handle is hein.gao/gaobabjfu0001 and id is 1 raw text is: lt, ': COMTREI.IER GWttWRAL OF THlE UNIT 0 STATZ IVMSIIINhGTON. P.C. ZOnI 11-107081 January 22, 1980 The lhonorable Eli;xabeth Ilol tzmani 1101150 ct. Rlepre'senltatives t Dear Ms. Holtzman: j1rj eit. J at, i n t. plbI reediar . This is In response to your re(uest for a review of our decision, 31 Comp. Con. 246 (1952) and, if thin decision i. still good law, for Iuformat:Lon on any exception!; to it which may have been developed. The 1952 decision has not been overruled or modified, In that case, a Federal agocuity asked whiether it might reimburse an employee for a fine imposed on andpnid by him for double-parking. The violation involved a Govornment vehicle driven by the eployee while on official business, The fine was impo-ed by the city or Denver. We held tat ther is no authority !:o use appropriated monies-- A * * for the payment of a fine imposed by a court on a Government employee for an offense 2lom- mitLed by him while in performance of, b-it not as part of, his official dties. 31 Comp. Con.,, rt 247. We wont on to say that such a fine or forfeiture of collateral is imposed on th employee personally and payient thereof is his prsonal responsi- bility,2. Id . In a more recent case, 44 Comp, Gkn 312 (1964), we addressed the question of whether a fine to punish contc !ir of court by a Federal am- ployee could be paid by his agency. The Agent in Charge, Chicago.office of the Federal Buretu of Iuvestigatinn (FBI), declined to answer questions, despite Lte District Court's order that lie do so. Ills refusal wbs based upon specific instructions from the Attorney Genrnil of the Unite'd States and upon regulations of his Department. An admnilstrativo determination was made thiat the fine was necessarily incurred in the accomplishmant of official btosiness for which the appropriation for salaries and expenses of the FllI was inade. Payment from that appropriation was held to be ratlthorized. In distingtishing between 44 Comp. Cen. 312 and 31 Comp. Ven. 246, one significant factor is whether the action for which the finu is imposed was specifically directed by the Attorney General of the United States and is therefore a necessary part of tie employee's official duties. Thus, the employee 11 31 Comp. Cen. 246, while engaged in the performance of his of- ficial duties when he parked, was nevertheless not acting with approval of his employer, or pursuont to regulationn or instructions. In other k - iS .W L i

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most