Can the Attorney General argue that the Commissioner's convenience outweigh the commands of the Constitution?

[68 Cal.2d 181] Moreover, even if we assume the commissioner's convenience could outweigh the commands of the Constitution, we cannot accept the Attorney General's argument. The plaintiff here does not insist that the commissioner must inevitably give the employee a hearing before filing any accusation against his employer, or even that the commissioner must invariably hear the employee's case before requiring his temporary suspension pending disciplinary proceedings against the employer. All plaintiff contends here is that, since one employer has already discharged him under pressure from the commissioner, he should now be afforded an opportunity to challenge the accusations lodged against him so that he can protect his reputation and obtain either reinstatement or a new position. ¹⁴ A procedure incorporating these measures would provide substantial protection to the employee without hindering the enforcement of the laws governing employers. (See Sokol v. Public Utilities Comm., supra, 65 Cal.2d 247, 256, 53 Cal.Rptr. 673, 418 P.2d 265.) Properly conceived, the plaintiff's request for a hearing imposes no undue burden upon the commissioner and presents no conflict between the needs of efficiency and the demands of due process.