Gates to Challenge Commission Decision in Court : Leave: He says he has not been accused of wrongdoing. Panel’s ruling is similar to the treatment the chief dealt officers charged in King beating.

Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates plans to go to court Monday to challenge the Police Commission decision to place him on paid leave, claiming that he has been disciplined without first having been accused of wrongdoing.

Gates’ relegation to inactive duty by the Police Commission amounts to the same treatment he gave the four officers who are charged criminally with the beating of Rodney G. King--the incident that has led to the city’s crisis in law enforcement leadership.

Gates’ supporters charge that the difference is that in the chief’s case there has been no accusation of wrongdoing.

“There has been a fundamental violation of the chief’s rights,” said a Gates lawyer, Jay Grodin. “I feel very confident we are going to prevail in the legal system.”

Grodin said the Police Commission gave Gates no reason for its decision to force him to take a leave of absence. “There were no allegations,” he said.

The Police Commission itself said in a public statement that it was not accusing the chief of wrongdoing, but that the action was taken “in light of recent and serious allegations of mismanagement and/or neglect of duty by the chief of police.” The commission did not elaborate.

The action taken against Gates is customary when an officer faces a serious accusation--usually a criminal charge. But without a charge, “there is no precedent for what was done,” said Harry Melkonian, another lawyer for Gates.

David Baca, former vice president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League and now a lawyer practicing in Orange County, said that “in rare circumstances, where there are serious allegations of misconduct, the chief will sometimes exercise discretion and relieve an officer of duties pending an investigation.

“Generally, it’s reserved for very serious kinds of misconduct, Baca said. “He doesn’t exercise that often. But it does happen. . . . There is no formal guideline for him in making his decision. . . . More typically he would await completion of an investigation.”

Gates’ legal dispute may center on interpretation of the police manual, which says: “When it is contrary to the best interests of the department for employees to continue their regular duties while awaiting an investigation or formal disciplinary action, they may be assigned to inactive duty” by a superior officer.”

The wording is “no more specific than that,” said Asst. City Atty. Diane Wentworth.

Under the City Charter, Gates is treated as though he has the same rights as any other police officer. His “chief,” however, is the mayorally appointed Police Commission. If serious, formal charges are brought, he would then be entitled to a formal hearing before the city Civil Service Commission.

Grodin said there is ample ammunition to challenge the Police Commission’s decision. He said there must be “formal charges of a serious nature . . . moral turpitude, criminal activity or mismanagement,” before an officer can be forced to take a leave with pay. “We don’t have any of that here.”

Representatives of the city attorney’s office said that the Police Commission has a lot of leeway, but whether it has the authority to do what it did is unclear.

“Generally . . . there is substantial discretion given to an appointing authority (in this case, the Police Commission),” said Fred Merkin, senior assistant city attorney in charge of employee relations. “As to whether or not that’s sufficient, I’m not going to say.”

Because the city attorney’s office customarily defends, in civil court, police officers accused of misconduct, Merkin said the office in this case has removed itself from its other customary role of advising the Police Commission.

“We are neutral in this controversy,” he said. “We are asking the council to act on a request from the Police Commission that a private firm be retained.” He said, however, the commission already had sought the advice of private lawyers, whom he declined to name.

Gates’ lawyers said they plan to ask the Superior Court in Los Angeles to intervene on the chief’s behalf, contending he has been the victim of a political frame-up.

“I think it’s very political,” Grodin said. “People in city government have decided they don’t like the chief and they are using the King incident to try to get rid of him.”

Added Melkonian: “We believe the Police Commission is acting through improper political influences, and that for the benefit of the city and the chief, the judiciary must take control of the situation.”

Several members of the Los Angeles City Council agreed. “I think that today’s action by the Police Commission, coupled with the mayor’s attempt to take over the Civil Service system, are a shocking abuse of our time-honored system of government, and a flagrant disregard for due process,” said City Councilman Joel Wachs.