In Scalzi v. City of Altoona, 111 Pa. Commw. 479, 533 A.2d 1150 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), appeal denied, 520 Pa. 592, 551 A.2d 218 (1988), the Court held that an individual may not actively participate in an investigation and then proceed to adjudicate the case. In Scalzi, a city council dismissed a city policeman for violating regulations. On appeal, the policeman argued that the mayor's participation as council chairman conducting the hearing, after the mayor had preferred charges against him and reviewed testimony prior to the hearing, constituted impermissible commingling of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions, and hence was violative of due process. To help decide the question, we reviewed relevant case law, from which we gleaned the following principles: An individual or Board may conduct a general probable cause investigation and still adjudicate the case. An individual may as a pro forma matter sign a suspension or removal letter and still adjudicate the case. An individual may prepare charges and still adjudicate the case. An individual may not prefer charges or actively participate in the investigation and still adjudicate the case. Scalzi, 533 A.2d at 1153. Because the mayor preferred the charges against the policeman, the Court held that his participation as an adjudicator was constitutionally prohibited under the last fact pattern. The Court observed that the preferring of charges by one vested with discretion to determine if such charges should be filed necessarily requires a commitment to the position that the individual is guilty, and the Court reasoned that, once that position is taken by the prosecutor, the chance that that individual can then assess the evidence impartially is too remote. Scalzi.