§ 10. Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a further inquiry into the dismissal of Mr. F. W. Turvey from the position of sub-postmaster at Ombersley Road, Worcester.
§ The Postmaster-General (Dr. Charles Hill)I have inquired into the circumstances of this case, and I can see no reason to modify the decision to terminate Mr. Turvey's services.
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonIs the Postmaster-General aware that Mr. Turvey strongly denies the charges of dishonesty which led to his dismissal, and does the right hon. Gentleman realise that by refusing to prosecute, as Mr. Turvey challenged him to do, the Postmaster-General has ruined a man who, in the eyes of the law, must still be presumed to be innocent?
§ Dr. HillMr. Turvey's services were terminated by reason of a deficiency in the accounts, disobedience of Post Office instructions, and a refusal for a considerable period to answer questions. I do not accept the principle that it is always necessary, in circumstances which justify dismissal, to proceed to prosecution.
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonDoes not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has constituted himself not only the former employer but also the judge and jury in this case? Will he not see that elementary justice is done to this man of being given an opportunity to defend himself in a court of law against the allegations which have been made?
§ Dr. HillThe position must be sustained that there are circumstances in which an employing body can terminate the services of an officer following the long-standing procedure, and without proceeding to prosecution.