|
61
T
t
!
is that they can only be transferred to a limited number of stations where either married quarters or suitable houses exist. An undue proportion of out-station work is thus thrown on those men who have not brought their wives.
3. During the early part of 1921 numerous cases occurred of Indians bringing back their wives without permission and the system of first enquiring from India as to the circumstances had to be discontinued and the Indian Police were warned that unless permission had in all cases been obtained beforehand the wife must be returned to India or dismissal from the force would follow.
4.
Rur Singh, Indian Police Constable 481, was well aware of this rule and on his bringing his wife to Hongkong he was allowed three months in which to send her
On the 17th August, back but he refused to obey this order. 1921, therefore, the Governor authorised his dismissal from the force with effect from the 31st August. Shortly before the end of the month the Captain Superintendent of Police reported that Indian Police Constable 481 had definitely promised to send his wife away on the 3rd September and asked that the Governor would reconsider his decision as the officer was an efficient policeman and bore a good character. The order for dismissal was therefore rescinded. Rur Singh did not, however, keep his promise and it transpired that this was due to his wife's opposition as she declared that she was willing to go to India only on condition that she was divorced. The Governor after careful consideration decided that in the interests of the discipline of the force the man could not be retained, and he was eventually dismissed with effect from 3rd November, 1921. It was not considered necessary to repatriate him in view of his otherwise good character and he has since that time been privately employed as a steamer guard under the Piracy Prevention Regulations.
5.