TNAG-0713-FCO40-908-Colonial-Regulations-policy-on-disciplinary-procedures-1978 — Page 29

CONFIDENTIAL

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CORRUPT OFFICERS

(31)

f

In the light of recent correspondence with the FCO, it' would seem that, in considering allegations of corruption against public officers, we should now proceed as follows :-

(i) there should normally be a criminal prosecution

where there is sufficient evidence;

(ii) if there is insufficient evidence to justify a

criminal prosecution, or if prosecution fails, or if in special circumstances prosecution is not advised, then the department concerned should examine not only the ICAC report, but also the officer's complete record of service, including job descriptions of the positions he has held, with a view to deciding, in the following order of priority, whether :-

(a) the provable or proved facts, possibly

considered with other matters, constitute disciplinary offences, different in character from the criminal offence, which could reasonably lead to dismissal; (b) there are sufficient provable specific

grounds to support action under CR 59. It remains essential to give the officer facts in support of the grounds on which his retirement is proposed. Whenever possible, the grounds under CR 59 should be incompetence or inefficiency since these are easier

to establish and defend than loss of trust

or confidence. Suspicion of involvement in criminal conduct should not be used as

a ground in such cases;

(c) failing (a) and (b), there is sufficient

evidence, albeit uncorroborated or tainted or both, to convince the Head of Department and "any reasonable person" that the officer had been involved in corrupt

activity and for that reason can no longer

CONFIDENTIAL

/enjoy