asked the Minister for Justice if he will arrange to have the case of a member of the Garda force who was dismissed (details supplied) reinvestigated and if there is any possibility of reinstatement of the said Garda officer; in default of such reinstatement the steps that were taken to pay any gratuity or pension to the said Garda officer who had over ten years' service.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dismissed Garda.
6.
I am informed by the commissioner that, in accordance with the provisions of the Garda Síochána (Retirement) Regulations, 1934, he ordered the retirement of the member referred to on grounds of incapacity for the performance of his duty. In case the member were by some means identifiable, I should say for the record it was an incapacity with a medical background. The question of reinstatement could not arise at all unless it were shown that the incapacity no longer existed and, without implying that he would be likely to be reinstated even if there were a change, the commissioner is not aware that there is in fact any change.
With regard to the steps taken to pay pension and gratuity, I am informed by the commissioner that the case was not reported earlier to my Department for superannuation purposes because there were issues which the Garda authorities were anxious to have clarified in the interests of the member so as to enable the maximum amount of his service to be reckoned for superannuation purposes. He was given oral advice in the matter but so far he has not followed the advice. Arrangements are now being made to authorise payment of superannuation benefits on the basis of the documented details already available.
I am glad that the Minister is taking steps in regard to the pension. Obviously, a man with ten years' service should be looked after. As a matter of interest, what was the date of the decision to dismiss the Garda officer in question?
He was appointed in 1968. The Garda surgeon examined the member on 18 December 1978 and certified that he was so incapacitated by infirmity that he was unable to perform his duties. I have not the information here, but I gather that it would have been within a very short time of 18 December 1978. I have not got the answer, but I would think that it would have been immediately after the surgeon certifying the illness in question.
I am not trying to make any issue. This is obviously a personal human tragedy in which I would like to help, as I am sure the Minister would also. But is the Minister in any way concerned that the commissioner at the time, if my dates are correct, could have been a commissioner who subsequently was found not to have been appointed legally?
That does not enter into this question.
Does it not place the whole issue of a decision having been made on a man's future by somebody who was not legally entitled to do so at the time?
That is a separate question.
The Deputy should remember that the person he has referred to in the question had a medical problem and that the extent of the medical problem was certified by the surgeon. It was on that that the person was asked to leave the force.