asked the Minister for Lands and Fisheries to state the reason or reasons why a Land Commissioner and a resident inspector recently resigned from the service, and the terms of their retirement; whether on pension or otherwise, and if on pension, the basis upon which their respective pensions have been calculated.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Land Commission Officials.
Neither of the officers referred to resigned. The Land Commissioner was discharged from office by the Executive Council. He thereupon made a claim for compensation under Article X of the Treaty, and was awarded compensation, consisting of an annual allowance and lump sum, by the Civil Service (Compensation) Board. The resident inspector was dismissed from the public service for neglect of duty and disregard of official instructions involving financial loss to the State, and accordingly was not awarded any pension or gratuity.
What were the grounds for the discharge of the Land Commissioner? Would the Parliamentary Secretary state them?
The Land Commissioner was discharged by the Executive Council on it being discovered that he was financially indebted to a subordinate officer. Indebtedness of this nature on the part of a high official constitutes a grave impropriety and especially so in the case of a Land Commissioner about whose financial stability and independence there must be no possible doubt.
Are we to take it that that would not prejudice the claim of the officer in question under Article X of the Treaty? Are we to take it that officers of the State who may be discharged have full rights to get a pension under Article X?
That would be a matter for the Compensation Board.
Has the Executive Council not power to step in and prevent the granting of compensation, or do they stand by while the Tribunal grants compensation to such officials?
It is a matter entirely for the Tribunal. They are entirely independent in a matter of that kind, and it is for them to decide whether an official is entitled to compensation or not.
Is it not a fact that the land commissioner was discharged by reason of his conduct, and should not that prevent his going before the Tribunal?
There is a difference between dismissal and discharge. He was not dismissed; he was discharged. The Executive Council did not take the view that this act was of itself sufficient to warrant dismissal. In certain cases officers lower down in the service have been found to be indebted to subordinates. In their cases what was done was the officer was degraded, his increment was stopped or he was, for instance, debarred from promotion. It was felt in this case that none of these forms of punishment would be suitable, and the Executive Council felt that the official must be discharged from the service.
Would the Minister define the difference between "dismissal" and "discharge"?
If a man is dismissed, that is, if the impropriety or misconduct is sufficiently serious to merit dismissal, he would have no claim to go before the Tribunal. When he is discharged he has his chance to go before the Tribunal.
Is it not a fact that a certain officer got compensation under Article X although he was dismissed? Does the Minister not know of that?
I do not know of it.
It is a fact, anyhow.