§ Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he has received a Report regarding the case of Mr. P. Kershasp, of the Madras Civil Service, who was reduced from the rank of sub-collector in connection with the riot at Guntur; whether the inquiry into his conduct was formal and public; whether distinct articles of charges were drawn up and read to him; whether, in other respects, effect was given to the principles laid down in Act 37 of 1850 for regulating inquiries into the conduct of public servants not removable without the sanction of the Government; whether, under Standing Order No. 133 of the Madras Board of Revenue, Mr. Kershasp was told of the evidence and arguments in support of the charge before he was required to defend himself; and whether, if the proceedings were not in accordance with the above regulations, the Secretary of State 1280W will move the Madras Government to reconsider its decision in the case?
The MASTER of ELIBANKThe Secretary of State has received a Report on the case of Mr. Kershasp. The inquiry into his conduct was held not under India Act 37 of 1850, but under Madras Act 5 of 1893 "for facilitating inquiries into matters connected with the administration of the Revenue and into the conduct of public servants." Mr. Kershasp appears to have been duly furnished with copies of reports and evidence. The Secretary of State sees no reason for his reconsideration of this case.
§ Mr. REESasked whether Mr. Kershasp, a Parsee gentleman, who was sub-collector and joint magistrate at Guntur, was removed to an appointment of less executive responsibility by the Madras Government for having left the scene of a riot which was to his knowledge at the time taking place; whether it is not competent to a local government to take such action as this without holding any inquiry or assigning any reason, whenever it considers such a step necessary in the public interests; and whether, since Mr. Kershasp's conduct was pessimi exempli, the Secretary of State will consider whether some more exemplary punishment by the Madras Government is called for in this case?
The MASTER of ELIBANKThe action of the Madras Government in this case was taken after an inquiry conducted under the provisions of Madras Act V. of 1893, and was quite within their powers. The Secretary of State sees no necessity for intervention.