2. Rule 253 of the Colonial Office Rules and Regulations prescribes that any memorial from a dismissed servant must be forwarded to the Secretary of State without delay.
Getting no relief, Attar Singh lodged a petition dated 17th September 1897 at the Governor's office to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
On 29th September, Attar Singh petitioned to know whether the last-mentioned petition had gone to England, and got no reply.
Three days after, i.e., on 1st October 1897, he was taken to the local jail and was confronted with a prisoner, who, without apparently recognising Attar Singh personally, alleged that one Tse Leung had been paid certain monies to be given to certain policemen (as hush-money on account of a gambling house). Tse Leung was then brought from an adjoining room and said that he had received 10 dollars a week from two gambling-house keepers and had given the money to Attar Singh.
In another case (apparently in connection with the same group of offences), in which a Police Inspector named Stanton was implicated, this same man, Tse Leung, denied having given any money as bribes to policemen. Stanton affirmed in an affidavit.
The charges against Attar Singh are thus, apparently, unsupported by reliable evidence.
It is to be noted that this second charge, as to the receipt of hush-money, was made some 11 months after Attar Singh had been dismissed, when he was no longer amenable to the departmental authority of the Captain Superintendent of Police, and could not be tried departmentally or in a summary manner.
It is also right to state that Attar Singh's agent was informed at the Colonial Office that this second charge, of receiving hush-money, was not so seriously pressed. No doubt it was felt that there are grave difficulties in the way of using the enquiry and decision in this matter to the prejudice of Attar Singh.
Attar Singh was not furnished with a statement of the nature of the charge against himself. The enquiries made were apparently of a departmental character, and Attar Singh has complained of want of full opportunity of meeting the charges.
A responsible subordinate officer of the Crown has been dismissed without receiving any copy of or written information of the reasons for his dismissal.
A request made for a copy of evidence was unanswered.