NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
CONFIDENTIAL
Some grounds
thau afor Cined suviai
6.9
M
7. The effect of the redraft of regulation 59(i)
which you propose appears to be fourfold.
First you
want a change for cosmetic reasons. Second you want
to clarify what is, apparently, the present practice,
of getting reports from some but not all heads of
department under whom the officer has served; and
third the change from "reply" to "representations" is
presumably intended to meet the argument that, if he
is to reply he must know all the evidence against him.
All these we accept. Only the fourth, the omission of
the obligation to let him know the grounds on which
his retirement is contemplated, gives us trouble.
Grounds are not the same as evidence, and certainly
not the same as all the evidence. You are already,
in your paragraph 11, proposing to give a corrupt
officer some grounds, and others all the grounds.
trouble is that this is not a disciplinary regulation.
When you are certain that an officer is corrupt and
Course of
in place for action is the sthe
can prove it, then the right
under
The
courts or regulation 57. When you are equally certain
but the evidence is too sensitive to be used, regu-
lation 55 would be appropriate. If the officer is
willing to go quietly, regulation 59 presents no
problem. It is only where he is defiant and you
cannot prove the case of corruption against him that
the problem arises. In such cases to give him no
--formal grounds for his retirement would seem to be
asking for trouble. It would also seem prudent that
those grounds should not be that he is corrupt, which
you cannot prove, but that the suspicion of corruption
/which
(17259) Dd.897459 250m 12/72 G.W.B.Ltd. Gp.863 (16941) Dd.897300 250m 9/72 G.W.B.Ltd. Gp.863