(Joint Council of .Dining Car Employer
 ( Local 495
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Joint Council of Dining Car Employer, Local 495
 on the property of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
 for and on behalf of Mr. Oscar Taylor, who was dismissed from Carrier's service
 on February 1, 1971 as a result of an investigation held on January 12,'1971.
 Carrier shall now restore Mr. Taylor to service with full seniority rights and
 compensated for all time lost.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The claimant was employed as a Passenger Agent at the time he
 was accused by the civil authorities of accepting a bribe. He
 was transferred by the Carrier to the Dining: Car Department as a waiter, in accord
 ance with his seniority. He worked in this capacity untiL he was convicted and
 sentenced to prison.

 The records show that prior to the investigation held by the Carrier on January 17, 1971, the claimant was advised that he had violated that portion of the Dining Car Department Rule 70 relating to dishonesty and that he was an undesirable employee bec was sentenced in the Criminal Court of Record, Duval County, Florida, on a charge of accepting a bribe. As a result of the investigation the claimant was dismissed by the Carrier.

 The Organization appealed to this Board on the grounds that the claimant occupied an excepted position of Passenger Agent and therefore was not subject to Rule 70 of the Dining,1Qar Department; also, that the charge of being an "undesirable employee" is v details were given to apprise the claimant of tN qiate, timeo.or-place in regard to the charge of violation of General Order No,,;.70.ra1'ating to dishonesty..

 The Organization's contention that it was improper to hold an investigation while the claimant o the long-standing position of this Board that an employee may be removed from an excepted position without resort to the disciplinary and appeals procedure of the Agreement, but when such an employee is to be dismissed from the service of the Carrier then the provisions of the Agreement under which he holds seniority must be followed. (See Awards 17922 (Devine), 13632 (0'Gallagher), 8426 (Lynch), 6868 (Parker), 6250 (Elkouri), 2941 (Carter)).
                  Docket Number DC-19680


While it is true that the claimant was indicted while he was a Passenger Agent, at the time of h employee of the Dining Car Department, where he held seniority and was therefore subject to the prov
This Board has taken the position that Carriers are not required to retain employees who are dishonest or bring discredit to the Carrier in their service. The. Board has also held that where the claimant was afforded a fair and impartial hearing and the action of the investigation was neither arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith, the action of the carrier should not be disturbed.

        FINDINGS; The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1.934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That Clio Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: drd e1
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of November 1972.