BY BAG
FROM F CO
UNCLASSIFIED
SAVING TELEGRAM
HONGKONG
(HX14/393/14)
TO HONG KONG TELNO 65 SAVING OF 12 SEPTEMBER 1974
Your telno 189 Saving of 6 August:
Colonial Regulation 42.
I confirm that, subject to procedures outlined in your savingram under reference, Colonial Regulation 42 may be used in similar cases in future.
FILES GIB & GD
HKIOD
2/4266/76 13/4266/54
, C.S. 20A (Rev.) 2600027
CONFIDENTIAL
SAVING TELEGRAM
From the Governor, Hong Kong
To the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Repeated to:-
Repeated to:-
No.189
No.
No.
Date...... 6 August 1974
My Reference... EBCR 2/4266/74
Your Reference....
Colonial Regulation 42
I have taken action against Sin and Wan as suggested B in paragraph 2 of your telegram 682 of 24th July 1974.
2.
I should be grateful for confirmation that, subject to compliance with the normal procedures, Colonial Regulation 42 may be used in similar cases in future. In such cases, after informing the officer concerned of the action proposed and giving him an opportunity to explain his absence, I would submit the case for the advice of the Public Services Commission (except where the officer concerned was outside the purview of the Commission) and, for officers who come within CR 66(1), for your approval, before ordering dismissal.
APA:hom
1
CONFIDENTIAL
6
•
Аспой
CYPHER CAT A
:
FM FCO 241152Z JUL
CONFIDENTIAL
CYPHER OFFICE REG NO.3345 DTR 25TH JULY, 1974. 0700 HRS.
TO ROUTINE HONG KONG TELNO 682 OF 24 JULY 1974.
YOUR TELNO 125 SAVING OF 10 MAY 1974: DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS: CHIEF INSPECTORS SIN AND WAN
1. WE ARE ADVISED THAT ACTION MAY BE TAKEN IN EACH OF THESE CASES UNDER COLONIAL REGULATION 42, WHICH PROVIDES THAT ''AN OFFICER WHO IS ABSENT FROM THE TERRITORY WITHOUT PERMISSION SHALL BE LIABLE TO SUMMARY DISMISSAL'
2. IT IS THE PRACTICE, IN MAKING USE OF THIS CR, TO PROV I DE THE OFFICER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING TO DISMISSAL. WE THEREFORE SUGGEST THAT SIN AND WAN SHOULD EACH BE INFORMED IN WRITING (SIN THROUGH HIS WIFE AND WAN THROUGH HIS BROTHER), THAT WITH MY APPROVAL IT IS PROPOSD TO DISMISS THEM SUMMARILY UNDER THE PROVIS ICHS OF CR 42 UNLESS, WITHIN A PERIOD WHICH YOU CONSIDER REASONABLE, THEY HAVE GIVEN A SATISFACTORY REASON FOR THEIR ABSENCE. IF NO SATISFACTORY RESPONSE IS RECEIVED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT THEY MAY THEN BE DIGMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER FORMALITY, WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATES ON WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE RETURNED TO DUTY IN HONG KONG.
A: SCS
D: NIL
so
B. CONFD.
1080
5-JUL
-301-192
REGISTR
D
WARD