The Denver board that oversees sheriff’s deputy discipline has accused the safety manager’s office of using officer statements as “lie detector tests” as it looks for reasons to fire deputies.

The Career Service Authority board leveled the accusation this week after it determined that two Denver Sheriff Department deputies should get their jobs back after they were fired for lying during internal investigations.

“We do not believe the report-writing requirements were ever intended to act as constant, nonstop honesty tests, as the Agency appears to be using them,” the board said in a decision order released Monday.

Deputy William Lewis had been fired in September 2014 when he first failed to report a use-of-force incident and then included inaccurate facts. Lewis said he did not see another deputy punch an inmate in the intake area of the Downtown Detention Center, although video footage showed Lewis nearby as it happened.

Lewis was re-instated later this week and given back pay for the nearly 14 months he had been terminated, said Daelene Mix, a spokeswoman for the Department of Safety.

The second deputy due to be re-instated, Rosanna Jenkins, had made racially offensive comments in July 2013 that caused unrest in the women’s unit at the department’s Smith Road complex. Jenkins had said during the internal investigation that she did not realize the phrase “Black is wack” would be offensive.

Jenkins, who was fired in July 2014, has not returned to work, Mix said.

During the past two years, the safety department has fired more deputies than in previous years, and dishonesty often is the reason behind a termination. For example, Frank Gale, who was an acting division chief, was fired earlier this year. Officials said he gave preferential treatment to a department captain who had been arrested and then lied about his actions during the investigation.

Gale, who already twice has been fired and rehired after an appeal, denies the allegations and is challenging his most recent termination.

Lewis and Jenkins won their original appeals earlier this year after a hearing officer found them to be credible. The city had challenged the hearing officer’s decision before the full career service board, which Monday decided to uphold the hearing officer’s decision to overturned the dismissals.

The Lewis case was connected to a high-profile use-of-force incident that preceded a massive reform effort at the department.

Deputy Thomas Ford punched an inmate in the Downtown Detention Center processing area, and video footage became another embarrassment for the department.

Ford also was accused of dishonesty in the investigation and was fired. The Career Service Board, a five-person panel appointed by the mayor, is considering his appeal.

Days after the Ford video went public, then-sheriff Gary Wilson stepped down, and Elias Diggins was appointed interim sheriff. At the time, Mayor Michael Hancock said he and Wilson had reached a mutual agreement about the change. While Hancock did not say the Ford incident was the last straw, he said, it “took a little more out of my heart and soul.”

That day, Hancock also pledged to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the department to end the cycle of inmate abuse.

Now, there are fears the career service board’s willingness to overturn dismissals may undermine the sheriff’s department reform.

Last month, Denver’s independent monitor, Nick Mitchell, raised questions about the appeals process in his semi-annual report. The sheriff’s department’s discipline matrix makes rule violations and punishment clear to all officers.

However, the Career Service Board is not obligated to consider the matrix when making decisions, Mitchell wrote.

“The matrix is also an important tool in the ongoing reform of the DSD,” Mitchell wrote. “The OIM is concerned that these important goals may be undermined by the fact that Hearing Officers are not required to apply the matrix.”

Denise Maes, public policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said that while deputies have a right to due process the board was wrong to accuse the safety department of having a motive during internal investigations.

It is the safety manager’s job to analyze statements, actions, words and reports to determine whether a deputy violated an order or was dishonest, she said.

“The Career Service Board implies or explicitly accuses the agency as being involved in some bad behavior,” Maes said. “I don’t think that is accurate.”

The city has not decided whether it will appeal the cases to the Denver District Court, Mix said. Because appeals could continue, Mix said she was limited in what she could say about the board’s decision orders.

“That said, I can say that we respectfully disagree with the Board’s decision and believe that disciplinary action is warranted in those instances where law enforcement personnel are deceptive,” Mix wrote in an e-mail. “Based on the facts of the case, we stand by our discipline determination and are discussing our appellate options.”