Robert J. Romanick, who resides at 346 Park Place Road, Mahanoy City, wants his job back as Rush Township chief of police.

He filed a petition in the Schuylkill County court seeking to have a fact-finders adjudication and the action by Rush Township supervisors of removing him as chief and the police force to be overturned. It also asks that he be restored as chief with back pay and benefits and that the township pay for his legal fees.A hearing was held before attorney James R. Scallion, Hazleton, who was appointed the hearing examiner and held under the Police Tenure Act. On receiving his findings, the township supervisors held a public meeting, informing Romanick they voted unanimously to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the hearing examiner and to terminate his employment.Romanick is challenging in court those findings of fact and conclusions of law which were ruled against him.Scallion's findings included:• The township failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Romanick failed to provide the supervisors with a key to the police office.• The township did establish that Romanick failed to provide the supervisors with regular, complete and accurate inventories of the contents of the evidence room in the police station.• The township failed to establish that Romanick violated any directive with regard to the use of the Rush Township Police Force as a private security force for the Delano Township Fire Company block party.• The township failed to establish that Romanick failed to complete preparation of an acceptable Police Department Standards Operating Procedures Manual.• The township did establish Romanick purchased an assault rifle on behalf of the Rush Township Police Department without proper prior approval of the supervisors. The township did not, however, establish he exceeded the approved budget or otherwise ordered material that was not budgeted.• The township failed to establish Romanick has failed to properly supervise subordinates leading to litigation that would otherwise have been avoided.• The township did establish Romanick failed to discipline or reprimand an officer who had argued in a profane and disrespectful manner with the supervisors. The described incident clearly occurred and it occurred in Romanick's presence. It is indefensible that Romanick, as the officer's superior, permitted the exchange at all.As to standard of inefficiency, neglect, intemperance, disobedience of orders or conduct unbecoming an officer, the hearing officers findings were as follows:• The township did establish that Romanick frequently made derogatory comments about one or more members of the board of supervisors and specifically threatened to cause physical harm to Supervisor Stephen Simchak.• The township did establish Romanick frequently argued with and used profanity in his communication with the supervisors.• The township failed to establish that Romanick's behavior during his service as chief of police constituted a continuing pattern of improper and disrespectful treatment of township employees and supervisors.• The township failed to establish a lack of candor and truthfulness on behalf of Romanick regarding police department programs and issues.• The township failed to establish Romanick failed to respond to or improperly delegated responsibility for emergencies which occurred while he was off duty.• The township did establish that on or about Jan. 4, 2009, Romanick abandoned his employment and/or quit, when he left the township meeting and never again reported for work.• The township failed to establish Romanick exceeded his authority as chief of police by communicating with an officer's physician while that officer was receiving workman's compensation.• The township failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence Romanick violated confidential personal matters by publicly discussing a former employee's circumstances.• The township did establish by a clear and convincing evidence that the charges proven are sufficient to justify demotion and/or termination of Robert Romanick under the Police Tenure Act.In his suit Romanick claims the findings contained in the adjudication are not supported by substantial evidence of reason and that the hearing officer made errors of law in a number of conclusions