WILLIAM Geary is tired. His clouded blue eyes, which have witnessed the passing of a century, are red-rimmed and he walks with less than his usual conviction. Since February 3rd he has spent many hours in his Manhattan apartment flipping through the 36-page evidence file provided to him by the Government.

This file relates to his dismissal from the Garda Siochana in 1928 when stationed in Kilrush, Co Clare, for allegedly accepting a £100 bribe from the IRA. Soon after requesting a solicitor, he was sacked without charges, a disciplinary hearing or trial.

The papers, which were made available to The Irish Times by Mr Geary, shed some light on this 71-year-old mystery.

Only a few of the old documents indicate the basis for Mr Geary's removal. The main evidence against him is in two intercepted IRA letters with encoded messages.

The first is a correspondence between the IRA's OC West Clare Battalion and the director of intelligence. The deciphered passage reads: "Arrange with Geary to continue the raids on the houses and keep him supplied with lists of places to be raided. Hostile publicity will be continued."

The second, a badly photocopied document, or photo, is completely illegible except for a decoded message reading:

"Have handed over the hundred pounds to Superintendent Geary. He was very satisfied with the amount. I have given him a list of houses which can be safely raided from time to time. It would be well to hit up Geary as hard as possible in An Phoblacht as he is working satisfactory. Let me know if I may drop the other CID. Have sent on by courier the latest stuff as it is important you should have it at once."

Following the interception of these letters through the post, Mr Geary was called before the commissioner, Eoin O'Duffy, the deputy commissioner, Eamon Coogan, and chief superintendents David Neligan and Edward O'Duffy.

The released file includes a report written by O'Duffy for the secretary of the Department of Justice on this incident. O'Duffy wrote: "I immediately charged him with treachery, informing him I had definite and indisputable proof of his acts."

Earlier in the report, O'Duffy says: "It was considered, however, that we could not make use of the evidence we had in the open court, that it would be improper to make public the manner in which we secured copies and photographs of the correspondence, and further, that we could not very well publish the manner in which we got the coded message deciphered."

Another report in the file was written by Neligan to the commissioner and explores the possibility that Geary may have been set up by the IRA or his own subordinates in Kilrush. After exploring several areas of inquiry, Neligan concluded "the evidence against him is incomplete no doubt, as it must be in such cases, but it is sufficient, in my opinion to be incontrovertible". He recommended Mr Geary's dismissal.

The commissioner went further to suggest that "a person who would descend so low as to sell the secrets entrusted to him as an officer of the police force of the State, is a criminal of the vilest type and richly deserves capital punishment. (The question of including such a provision in future legislation is worthy of serious consideration.)"

After reviewing the file this month, Mr Geary said there was no corroborative evidence against him. He believes the possibility of a set-up was not explored fully and he is greatly disheartened that the Garda trusted IRA letters more than his good reputation and word.

Of Neligan's damning report, Mr Geary says: "He says I was aware from the beginning that the IRA letters were being examined by the police and considers it extraordinary, since I was in league with them, that I did not warn the IRA never to include my name in its communications. He admits he is baffled and has no answer. He thinks the IRA was not aware of letter censoring but qualifies this by saying they did not trust the post. My answer would be that every secret society takes into consideration that its letters are censored."

Mr Geary remains frustrated by the incomplete file he claims was sent to him. Since it was released on humanitarian, rather than Freedom of Information (FOI) Act grounds, he has no way of knowing if all the relevant papers were provided to him.

A spokesman for the Department of Justice said papers in Mr Geary's file that were unrelated to his case were not released to him. It is unknown how many documents were held back, and why, although the document has been described as substantive.

Under Irish law, Mr Geary has two options. He may appeal the Department of Justice's refusal to release the file under the FOI Act, and he may ask the Attorney General to overturn his dismissal on the basis that he never received due process. The second option has already been exercised.

The first is simply a matter of writing to the Department requesting a review of the FOI decision, says a spokesman for the Office of the Information Commissioner. "The appeal is normally an internal review so it would carried out by a person of more senior rank than the person who initially made the decision," he said. The result must be determined within three weeks of the request.

If the internal appeal is not successful, Mr Geary may use his right of appeal to the Office of the Information Commissioner. However, a successful appeal does not necessarily mean Mr Geary will discover the names blackened out of his papers, as the Act ensures the privacy rights of others, including the deceased, are not infringed. It may mean additional files will be sent to him.

Recently a similar case, which involved personal and personnel documents of a man dismissed from the Defence Forces, was appealed successfully to the OIC.