3.
CR 58
14. Under this CR an officer convicted on a criminal charge may. be dealt with without further proceedings in one of the ways described in paragraphs 11 13 above.
CR 59 (Your telegram no 1446, paras 3 and 4(A) and
your telegram no 77)
15. We accept the proposed amendment of CR 59(1) in paragraph 3. of your telegram no 1446. Under this CR an officer can be com- pulsorily retired in the public interest after due enquiry. This is not in itself to be regarded as a punishment (see CR 54(3)
16. The use of this CR is not appropriate where the case against an officer really consists of specific acts of sorious wrong-doingg which are susceptible to investigation and proof: it must not be used as an easy method of gotting rid of an officor who has committed an offence or offences which, if established, would morit dismissal or compulsory retirement: such cases must be dealt with under CR-57 (or, following criminal conviction, under CR 58). It is appropriate to use CR 59 whero the grounds for removal aro general inefficiency or unsuitability for employmont in Govornment Service. The essential distinction is that CR 57 is applicable where specific charges can be brought against an officer of mincóndite negligence or irregularity, whoreau CR. 59 applies not to upocific offences but to general unsuitability or inability to perform dubion with efficiency,
17. It has been thought proper in the paut to uso CR 59 in casen of misconduct when the circumstances of the cane were uuch that. the institution of disciplinary proceedings under other ragulationG was felt to be undesirable. This is what we-appood-1net_uzeli dadadadadad and discussing with the Governor the use of Colonial Regulations to dispense with the services of corrupt officers who could not be convicted in court because the evidence was secret or inadmieniba, and for whom proceedings under CR 57 were inappropriate for security. reasons, and CR 55 possibly too extreme. We remain content to opred with this use of CR 59, provided that the officer so retired is allowed to do so with his earned superannuation benefits. Rocamag reduction of pension or gratuity is a punishment we consider, that in accordance with modern UK practice it is wrong to associate it with compulsory retirement under CR 59. In circumstances in which this punishment is appropriate le officer should be removed or retired under CR 57, amended as proposed in paragraph 11 above exceptionally under CR 55.
18.
Nevertheless, if an officer is below the age at which he in able to retire voluntarily with superannuation benefits (we would be glad of your advice on whether in practice this should be ot 50 or 55), we accept that you may wish, on dispensing with bin services under CR 59, to freeze all or part of his superannuatious benefits until he reaches retiring age. This would be compatible with modern UK practice. It would also enable you to deal with the case of an officer who had been refused permission to rotire on pension and decided to make such a nuisance of himself you
/ had