§ MR. BRADLAUGHI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to answer the question as to the circumstances under which Kali Krishna Bágchi and two other surgeons on the Bengal Establishment have been dismissed from the Service; whether it is the fact that, in accordance with the rule governing the promotion of assistant surgeons, Kali Krishna Bágchi, after 14 years most satisfactory service, applied for examination at the septennial examination in Calcutta in May last, and two other assistant surgeons, after a lesson term of service, applied for the like examination; that such examination took place, and all were declared to have satisfied the examiners; that the Inspector General of Hospitals addressed questions to the Principal of the Medical College, and received assurances that every safeguard against foul play had been taken, and the examination conducted under adequate supervision; that, nevertheless, the Inspector General called upon Kali Krishna Bágchi and two others to undergo a supplementary examination prepared by himself; whether this course was in direct contradiction to the Regulations affecting medical examinations in India, the Examining Board alone having power to examine medical officers; whether Kali Krishna Bágchi and two others, having, on the ground that the proceedings were an imputation on their honour, and contrary to the Regulations, refused to submit themselves to the supplementary examination, were summarily dismissed for wilful disobedience of orders; whether the head of a Department can thus summarily dismiss officers against whom no charges of misconduct are made or inquired into, in view of the fact that the Rules of the Government Service in India state that Indian
Subordinates are not to be dismissed merely in consequence of unfavourable opinions entertained towards them by their superiors, or for slight reasons, but on proof only of tangible-delinquency in such matters as fraud and dishonesty, continued and wilful negligence, and all offences involving disgrace";323 and whether he will give instructions that the order for the dismissal of these officers shall be cancelled, and will direct an inquiry to be instituted into the whole circumstances, in which full opportunity will be given to the officers concerned to answer any charges which may have been brought against them?
SIR J. GORSTThe answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second is in the negative. The facts are not correctly stated in the question. The examination was a compulsory one, failure to pass which involved dismissal. The three assistant surgeons were never declared officially to have satisfied the examiner. The Inspector General, whose duty it was to decide whether they had passed or not, was not satisfied with their answers, and ordered them to answer further questions. This was not inconsistent with any existing Regulations. The assistant surgeons having, after explanations and warnings, persisted in disobeying the orders of the Inspector General were suspended from office in the first instance, and their dismissal was finally confirmed by the Government of India, to whom the matter was referred by the Government of Bengal. The Secretary of State sees no reason to interfere.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHHave the regulations set out in the Circular Memorandum of the 15th of September been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State?
SIR J. GORSTI think that is the date of the Circular, but I am not prepared to pledge myself to anything with regard to it without notice.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHI will again draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the matter.