asked the Minister for Defence whether the engagement of a solicitor by a retired officer has in any way militated against the reaching of a decision as to the officer's responsibility for a loss to public funds.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Retired Army Officer.
30.
The answer to the Deputy's question is in the negative.
31.
asked the Minister for Defence in the case of the officer from whom £486 has been provisionally withheld since 1st August, 1961, whether his duties included the issue of material from stores to units or to military or civilian personnel apart from the FCA Battalion of which he was Administrative Officer; if so, whether such duties are normally allotted to officers holding such an appointment; whether these additional duties do not obviously indicate that additional staff should have been provided to enable the officer to carry out his duties properly; or whether the officer was given an unreasonable load of responsibility as suggested by the Court of Inquiry.
The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is in the affirmative and the answer to the second part is in the negative. Additional duties no doubt always make a person's task more difficult but in this particular case I do not consider that the additional duties constituted an unreasonable load of responsibility.
32.
asked the Minister for Defence whether the legal proceedings to which he referred in a reply of 14th June, 1962, are still pending; and, if so, if he will state the parties involved, the nature of the proceedings, and the relevance of such proceedings to the final establishment of the responsibility of the officer for a loss to public funds.
The possible legal proceedings to which I referred were proceedings which, it had been intimated to my Department, were being considered on behalf of the Stores Officer involved in this case with regard to the withholding of the sum of £486 from his gratuity. That is why I said I was disinclined to discuss the matter by way of impromptu question and answer.