In August 2007, DeKalb County terminated the employment of police officer Evan Bull following Bull’s involvement in an incident of domestic violence. Bull appealed the termination, and a hearing officer affirmed the decision. Bull filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Superior Court of DeKalb County. The court granted the writ, reversed the hearing officer’s ruling, and reinstated Bull as a police officer. DeKalb County and its police department hereinafter, “DeKalb County” appeal,1 contending that the court erred in reversing the decision of the hearing officer and in ordering Bull’s reinstatement. For the reasons which follow, we agree and reverse. 1. DeKalb County contends that the superior court erred when it reversed the hearing officer’s decision upholding Bull’s termination, because the hearing officer’s factual conclusions were supported by evidence in the record at the time the hearing officer issued her decision. The county also argues that, in reversing the hearing officer’s decision, the superior court improperly considered evidence that was not before the hearing officer and applied the wrong standard of review. The appellate record supports that county’s arguments.
“The appropriate standard of review to be applied to issues of fact on writ of certiorari to the superior court is whether the decision below was supported by any evidence .” Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original. Jamal v. Thurmond , 263 Ga. App. 320 587 SE2d 809 2003.2 “On appeal to this Court, our duty is not to review whether the record supports the superior court’s decision but whether the record supports the initial decision of the local governing body or administrative agency.” Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted. Glass v. City of Atlanta , 293 Ga. App. 11, 14 1 666 SE2d 406 2008. “Neither the superior court nor this Court reweighs credibility determinations of the factfinder.” Jamal v. Thurmond , 263 Ga. App. at 322 2. In other words, because the factfinder in the initial proceedings is charged with weighing the evidence and judging the credibility of the witnesses, the superior court and this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the factfinder’s decision and must affirm the decision if there is any evidence to support it, even when the party challenging the factfinder’s conclusions presented evidence during the initial proceedings that conflicted with those conclusions. See Glass v. City of Atlanta , 293 Ga. App. at 11, 14 1 although the petitioner presented evidence to the civil service board that conflicted with the city’s evidence, the board was authorized to discount the petitioner’s evidence, to find the testimony against the petitioner to be more credible, and to affirm his termination; thus, because there was evidence to support the termination, the superior court did not err in affirming the board’s decision, and this Court affirmed the court’s decision.
