§ SIR W. EVANS-GORDON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the sudden dismissal, after twenty-nine years of approved service, of Trimbak Ganesh Paranjpi, extra assistant commissioner and magistrate of the first class in the Central Provinces of India; whether Paranjpi, was suspended by telegraphic orders, and publicly disgraced for several months, on the statement of a man who subsequently denied ever having made it, and which was eventually found to be untrue; whether he is aware that Paranjpi was refused copies of important documents used against him and even the names of his accusers; whether, considering that Paranjpi was a gazetted officer in the Provincial Indian Service, and as such, before being dismissed, was entitled, under Section 2 of Act XXXVII. of 1850 of the Indian Legislature to a 1004 formal and public inquiry, he will satisfy himself whether such an inquiry was held before Paranjpi was deprived of his livelihood and sent adrift in his old age; and whether, if satisfied that no such public inquiry was made, he will direct that such an inquiry be instituted.
§ (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) This case has been carefully investigated only a month or two ago in connection with a memorial addressed to the Secretary of State by Mr. Paranjpi. That officer was suspended by the Chief Commissioner in September, 1902, in consequence of an investigation into his conduct with reference to the acquisition of certain lands in Berar. On the matter being reported to them, the Government of India did not consider that the case called for an inquiry under Act XXXVII. of 1850, but they ordered a statement of charges to be framed and a formal investigation to be made into them under the procedure laid down in 1879. This was done, and, after careful consideration of the evidence in the case, the Chief Commissioner was of opinion that the charges were substantiated, and he recommended that Mr. Paranjpi should be dismissed from the service of the Government. In his opinion and recommendation the Government of India concurred. Mr. Paranjpi has had every opportunity of meeting the charges made against him and has failed to do so. I have therefore, informed the Government of India that I see no reason for interfering with their orders in the matter.