Don’t compromise public service rules
We are quite concerned to learn about the errors and inconsistencies that remain in the Public Service Ordinance, 2025 despite two rounds of revisions. Following administrative unrest after the July 2024 uprising, the interim government amended the Government Service Act, 2018, to address issues related to discipline, accountability, and efficiency in public administration. As the amendment issued on May 22 sparked protests among civil servants, the authorities revised the ordinance again and published a second amendment on July 23. Yet, quite a few inconsistencies have still remained, drawing criticism from both service holders and experts who warned that the ordinance will remain ineffective unless its flaws are addressed.
Take for example Section 37(Ka-9), which empowers either the "appointing authority" or "the individual framing the charges" to impose penalties on an official found guilty of breaching service rules. But allowing the individuals framing charges to impose penalties contradicts Article 135(1) of the constitution, which states that only the appointing authority may dismiss or penalise a civil servant. Besides, there is ambiguity regarding the scope for a public servant to seek a review of disciplinary punishment. While Subsections 10 and 11 outline punishments for misconduct, Section 37(Ka) is not referenced in Sections 34 and 36, which grant employees the right to appeal and request reviews. This raises concerns that those punished under Section 37(Ka) may be excluded from these protections.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. 
Moreover, the recently amended ordinance allows only one show-cause notice to the accused employee before punishment is imposed. But imposing a different penalty than stated in the notice, after the accused's reply, would violate Article 135(2) of the constitution, which guarantees a fair chance to respond to the specific proposed punishment. Furthermore, Section 37(Ka-1)(a) of the ordinance defines disobedience or violation of official directives as "misconduct", which is already covered under Rule 2(b) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2018. This overlap creates a risk of dual punishment under two separate legal frameworks.
It is baffling how such glaring inconsistencies could persist in the ordinance despite being reviewed by a high-level government committee. This clearly reflects the inefficiency and lack of sincerity of the team responsible for the amendments. Rules or laws of this nature should not be rushed; rather, adequate time and care must be taken to ensure they are comprehensive. We, therefore, urge the government to revise the ordinance once more and eliminate the existing flaws and inconsistencies. In doing so, it should also seek input from relevant experts.
Comments