¶2Gardner W. Beckett, Jr., Nelson, Beckett, Nelson & Thomas, St. Peters-burg, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
¶3John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Hugh N. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Claude H. Tison, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
¶4Before WISDOM, GODBOLD and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.
¶7This case comes to us on appeal from a district court decision which reviewed and affirmed the discharge of appellant from his Civil Service position as a Post Office Department employee. We affirm.
¶8Appellant Taffel was arrested and booked for shoplifting on April 6, 1968.1 On April 10 and 15, the postmaster notified Taffel of proposed adverse action arising out of the alleged shoplifting incident and gave him an opportunity to reply to the charge. On April 26, 1968, Taffel was discharged. He exhausted his administrative appeals and then sued in federal district court for reinstatement and back pay. That court upheld the decision of the Civil Service Commission and Taffel appeals.
¶9Taffel argues that his dismissal should be reversed because (1) it was arbitrary and capricious, and (2) the charge was so vague as to deny him a fair opportunity to respond to it. We see no merit in either argument.
¶10The Civil Service Commission complied with all statutorily required procedures, and Taffel was afforded every opportunity to reply.
¶11The evidence was sufficient to support the Commission’s determination that Taffel should be discharged to “promote the efficiency of the service.”
¶12*252As to the argument that the charge was so vague as to deny him a fair opportunity to respond to it, we find that it was clearly sufficient to apprise him of the facts and reasons for the action being taken against him. There is no indication in the record that he was in any way confused about the situation with which he was being confronted.
¶13Affirmed.