"(3) For the purposes of regulations 56 to 66, punishment includes dismissal, compulsory retirement without pension, gratuity or other allowance, or with reduced benefits, fine, reduction in rank, severe reprimand, reprimand, stoppage or deferment
of increments and reduction in salary, but not retirement in the public interest under the provisions of regulation 59"
CR 55 (Para 4(B) of your telegram No 1446)
5.
This CR provides that an officer may be removed from office at the pleasure of the Crown signified through the Secretary of State 6. The regulation is not normally to be used in cases of misconduct, since there would generally be no reason why disciplinary proceedings should not be taken under CR 57 or CR 58. In practice its use in cases of misconduct should be confined to those in which (a) there is overwhelming evidence of misconduct which would justify dismissal or compulsory retirement, and (b) the evidence cannot (eg for security reasons) be produced, or its source revealed, in court or in disciplinary proceedings against the officer.
7.
In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to remove an officer from office under CR 55 where there is no misconduct on his part eg in the case of an officer whose wife is connected with a subversive organisation. In such cases the officer should leave with full earned superannuation benefits. But in cases in which there is no misconduct, and in which compulsory retirement is not to be regarded as a punishment, CR 55 should not be invoked if it is practicable to make use of the procedure for retirement in the public interest under CR 59, or, if the officer is over 45 years of age, for retirement under section 8(2) of the Pensions Ordinance. 8. When CR 55 is used, to`pre-empt the possibility of subsequent Parliamentary criticism, and in the interests of natural justice, the officer should normally be told the grounds on which it is proposed to remove him from office (this does not imply that all the detailed evidence should be disclosed to him, or its source), and given an opportunity to make representations before a final decision is taken. We have it in mind that in future all recommendu- tions for removal from office under CR 55 should, after being processed in the usual way in the territory and by FCO officials, be referred to an independent committee of two "wise men", who will be asked to advise the Jecretary of State both on the removal of the officer and on any question of Torfeiture, suspension or reduction of superannuation benefits. This proposal is based on the analogy of the Civil Appeal Board procedure in the UK, where such cases are referred to a panel of "three wise men" the official side of which is drawn from retired civil servants at Under-Secretary level. Uur suggestion is that normally the committee to advise on a case of removal from office under CR 55 should consist of one retired Governor and one senior retired judicial/legal officer.
9. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure under CR 55 may be to the effect that the officer should be missed, (in which case he is normallyili riule
For