Volume 270 — Minnesota Reports

<bold>Administrative law — review — discharge of highway patrolman</bold>. <block_quote> 1. Under Minn. St. <cross_reference>161.47</cross_reference>, subd. 11, the district court may affirm a disciplinary decision of the commissioner of highways or reverse with directions to proceed in a manner consistent with the rules the court prescribes, but under Minn. Const. art. <cross_reference>3</cross_reference>, § <cross_reference>1</cross_reference>, it has no power to substitute its judgment for that of the commissioner in matters pertaining to administrative policy.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Where a highway patrolman has consciously and consistently violated an order of the highway commissioner specifically prohibiting an officer from engaging in outside employment as a truckdriver, there is a legal and substantial basis for his discharge under § <cross_reference>161.47</cross_reference>, subd. 8, and it was error for the trial court to substitute a suspension for dismissal.</block_quote>