What is the test for "abuse of authority" in civil service discipline cases?

"Where it is claimed that the [administrative tribunal's] findings are not supported by the evidence, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence." (Code Civ. Proc., 1094.5, subd. (c); further section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.) The phrase "weight of the evidence" is synonymous with "preponderance of the evidence." (Chamberlain v. Ventura County Civil Service Com. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 362, 368-369, 138 Cal.Rptr. 155.)

The majority correctly concludes that, in applying this standard, a trial court reweighs the evidence and makes its own determination whether the employing agency met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employee's acts or omissions constituted cause for discipline. (Maj. opn. at pp. 732, 737; Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 44, 112 Cal.Rptr. 805, 520 P.2d 29; Richardson v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 493, 250 Cal.Rptr. 1.)