can properly deem the decision to be ‘arbitrary or capricious.’ ” MTA v. King, supra, 369 Md. at 291, 799 A.2d at 1255-1256. Furthermore, the employing agency does not have the burden, in the reviewing court, of justifying such a sanction. Instead, in accordance with the principle that the agency’s decision is prima facie correct and presumed valid, Board, of Physician Quality Assurance v. Banks, supra,, 354 Md. at 68, 729 A.2d at 381, the burden in a judicial review action is upon the party challenging the sanction to persuade the reviewing court that the agency abused his [sic] discretion and that the decision was “so extreme and egregious” that it constituted “arbitrary or capricious” agency action. See also Md. State Dep’t. of Pers. v. Sealing, 298 Md. 524, 539, 471 A.2d 693 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Resetar v. State Bd. of Educ. of Md., 284 Md.
holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service holding that there was substantial evidence from which a reasoning mind reasonably could have concluded that a correctional officers conduct was wantonly offensive and constituted sufficient cause for his removal from state service holding evidence legally and factually sufficient to sustain conviction for aggravated assault on a public servant and stating that the jury reasonably could have inferred that dominiques conduct was intentional based on his repeated attempts to run down the police officers who stood in his way holding that a defendant was estopped from asserting improper service where the defendants conduct caused the allegedly improper service holding that vocational experts testimony that there were jobs claimant could perform constituted substantial evidence