268
:
the enquiry held by the Captain Supt. of Police into his con- duct was a subordinate officer of Police duly engaged and sworn (as has already been pointed out) in the Hong-Kong Police Force.
He cannot therefore claim the privileges of an ordinary Civil Servant. Nor in any case can Petitioner claim, as he does, to be treated partly as a Police Officer and partly as a Civil Servant not subject to the provisions of the Police Ordinance. If he is to be treated as a Civil Servant proper in one respect,he must be so in all and must come under the Pension Minute, in which it is clearly laid down that pensions are not of right and that the Crown has the right to dismiss any officer without compensation.
Paragraph 11. Compare Ord.9 of 1862 sec.22
from which sec.24 of Ord.14 of 1887 sprung.
It is as evident as it is necessary that the
Governor was intended to have, and has, the power to dismiss Police Officers independently of any conviction before a
Magistrate.
Paragraph 12. I have recorded my view so
fully on Baker's Petition that I have nothing to add to
what I have written there.
Paragraph 13. Sham In's evidence and the
list undoubtedly went to show knowledge of the house on the
part of the Petitioner.
If
1