§ Mr. Sinha asked Government to lay on the Table a statement showing the names of officers and the action taken against them to mark disapproval of their action by Government in handling the Punjab disturbances. The Home Member said, before passing orders, Government considered it desirable to await the discussion of the Report in the House of Commons. They had, meanwhile, communicated with Local Governments, who were asked to submit proposals with regard to officers who were commended or blamed in the Report and despatches. Consideration of their replies, which in some cases included representations from the officers concerned, was not completed till a few days ago. The Government had not replied before, because they desired to make a statement as complete as possible before laying it on the Table.
§ The Home Member then laid a statement on the Table, which showed that action in 20 cases had been taken. The following are the details:—
§ Khan Sahib Ahmed Jan (Amritsar) has been reverted to his substantive rank of Police Inspector.
§ Police Inspector Ashraf Khan (Amritsar) has been reduced from second grade Police Inspector to the rank of sub-Inspector.
§ No action was taken against the sub-Inspector of Railway Police at Kasur.
§ No action was taken against 20 police constables of Patti, as no censure was suggested by the Hunter Committee.
§ Khan Bahadur Mirza Sultan Ahmed, Acting Deputy-Commissioner, Gujranwala, had since retired after a long and distinguished service, but Government censure had been communicated to him.
§ Lieut.-Colonel O'Brien, Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala; Mr. Marsden, Sub-Divisional Officer, Kasur; Mr. S. M. Jacob, Director of Agriculture, Punjab; Brigadier-General Campbell, Commanding Sialkot Brigade; Captain Doveton and Colonel Macrae, all these six officers had been informed, or (in some oases) it was proposed to inform them, of the Government's strong disapproval of these officers' actions, which were injudicious and improper.
§ Mr. Penhearow, Extra Assistant Commissioner, was at once deprived of his power to try cases under martial law. The Local Government had communicated to him their strong disapproval of his action, and the Government of India had asked the Local Government to consider what further disciplinary action could be taken against this officer.
§ Messrs. Kitchin and Miles Irving, of Amritsar, had been informed that the Government considered it was regrettable that these officers failed to retain control over the 1755W Military Commander and failed to remain in close touch with military people throughout the events.
§ Mr. Bosworth Smith proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement, after a request to remain on active duty till the spring of 1921 had been refused. The Government of India had asked the Local Government to communicate to this officer their strong disapproval of his injudicious and improper action.
§ General Dyer's case had already been dealt with.
§ General Beynon's action was criticised regarding the issue of defective instructions to Royal Air Force officers sent to Gujranwala; in this officer's case the military authorities considered that no more precise instructions could have been issued. Action was being taken to prescribe rules for future guidance.
§ The conduct of Lieutenant Bodkin and Major Carbery was not held blameworthy by the military authorities in view of the extreme difficulty of their position, for using bombs from aeroplanes.
§ Colonel Frank Johnson held a commission ill a Territorial Force, and had since been demobilised. No action was therefore proposed.
§ Mr. Sinha asked a supplementary question: Am I to understand that in spite of the distinct orders contained in the Secretary of State's despatch, these officers whose actions were condemned were again given an opportunity to make further representations to the Local Government before they were punished.
§ The Home Member said some of the officers concerned had made representations to the Local Government before final action was taken."