The interim government has moved to amend the Government Service Act-2018 to allow swift disciplinary action against its employees who will be found guilty of disrupting official activities.

The accused employees can be suspended, removed from service or demoted with only eight-day show-cause notices. The notices would be served in two phases -- first in a maximum of five days and second in three days, according to the proposed amendment.

The public administration ministry has prepared the draft amendment in the wake of disruptions in civil administration since the July-August mass uprising. The home ministry also requested the amendment.

Five senior officials from the public administration and home ministries with knowledge of the draft confirmed the development to The Daily Star. They spoke to The Daily Star off the record as the matter is sensitive.

The draft amendment will be placed before the cabinet once it gets the go-ahead from Chief Adviser Prof Muhammad Yunus, who has kept the public administration ministry under his watch.

In the existing act or rules, there is no provision to mete out swift punishment to the public servants for major or minor offences. They can be punished if found guilty in a lengthy investigation process, said public administration experts.

However, the act permits the government to retire public servants without explanation once they complete 25 years in service.

The civil administration went through a period of disorder after the fall of the Awami League government on August 5 last year. A number of cadre officials demonstrated for promotion and other personal benefits by skipping work.

Processions were brought out at the Secretariat in Dhaka almost every day, while scuffles were also reported. Even the offices of secretaries of different ministries were locked up.

All these incident for several weeks led to the delay or disruption in government initiatives, policies, and services.

The proposed amendment is aimed at ensuring discipline during such periods. The act will have provisions similar to those in the "Government Servants (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1979", which was repealed in 2018 with the passage of the Public Service Act, said the officials.

Abdul Awal Majumder, a former secretary and public administration expert, told The Daily Star that the special provisions in the ordinance were "very strict". Some even described it as a "black law".

But in the current administrative context, such stricter provisions have become necessary, he said.

Asked about the proposed provision of eight days' time for the employees to submit an explanation, Awal said if the government wants, it can terminate any employee found guilty of an offence with an eight-day notice.

"There is no requirement for Public Service Commission's opinion or an investigation in such cases," he said.

OFFENCES, PUNISHMENTS

According to the draft, disciplinary action can be taken against any government employee who engages in activities that cause dissatisfaction among colleagues, disrupt discipline, obstruct others' work; remains absent without approved leave or valid reason or refrains from performing duties; provokes others to abstain from work, or prevents them from carrying out their duties; and obstructs another from attending office or performing their assigned tasks.

For these offences, the proposed amendment has three types of disciplinary action: dismissal, removal, and demotion or salary reduction.

The draft outlines the procedure for punishing government employees in question.

It says an accused employee will be served notice and he or she will have to respond to the allegation or attend a hearing in person within two to five days of being notified.

If the accused official fails to respond within the stipulated time or is found guilty even after giving a response, the authorities will impose a specific penalty and provide the employee with an opportunity to show cause within three days.

In case the accused fails to respond to the show-cause notice, or if the response is deemed unsatisfactory to the authorities, a final penalty will be imposed. However, the draft allows the accused to appeal the decision within seven days to the appropriate authority or, in special cases, to the president within 30 days.

Sources involved with the matter said that under the 1979 ordinance, appeals against penalties could not be challenged in court. The proposed draft of the Government Service Act also does not have any such provision.

The draft states that the president's decision on the appeal will be considered final.

WHY AMEND NOW

A home ministry official said that the involvement of public servants, including cadre officers, in chaotic incidents following the uprising has raised questions.

Due to the absence of a proper legal mechanism, it has not been possible to take strict measures against them, which has hampered the expected improvement in law and order.

"In many cases, government employees are not complying with official directives or are tactically distancing themselves from their responsibilities. This lack of discipline among public servants is slowing down the pace of government operations," the official said.

To address the problem, the public administration ministry has been requested to reinstate the 1979 ordinance.

Besides, several public servants have still not returned to work after the July uprising, which is why many want a stringent law that can hand out punishment quickly to such employees.

As many as 187 police personnel, from DIG to constable ranks, have yet to return to duty. As the government lacks the legal authority to take stern action against those in service for less than 25 years, it feels the absence of a stricter legal framework, the official said.

MIXED REACTIONS

Public administration experts and serving officials have given mixed reactions over the necessity of the proposed amendment.

Firoz Miah, former additional secretary, told The Daily Star that such a law is necessary to maintain order among the bureaucrats.

"In recent times, we have witnessed unprecedented chaos in the name of protests, often driven by personal interests. Discipline is yet to be restored in the administration due to the incompetence and weakness of the public administration. Therefore, the government may be trying to bring back provisions of the repressive ordinance," he said.

"There has probably never been such incompetent leadership in public administration since independence," added Firoz.

A senior official at the public administration ministry, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the amendment was necessary.

"Most of the strict laws introduced during Sheikh Hasina's long tenure have been gradually weakened, which increased the tendency of misconduct among government officials," the official said.

"The government has the authority to forcefully retire any public servant after 25 years of service without showing cause, but this provision is rarely used," the official added.

An official from the Chief Adviser's Office said on condition of anonymity that the law will only be applied to those who violate the rules. Therefore, there is no reason for honest officials to be afraid.

Meanwhile, some serving officials questioned the rationale of enforcing an ordinance from the military regime era, suggesting that such a move might heighten anxiety among civil servants.

They said enacting a stringent law could create trouble for officials who held key positions under previous administrations.

A joint secretary from the Local Government Division argued that the move to amend the act would curb freedom of thought among government employees, thereby infringing on their constitutional rights.

Citing article 39(1) of the constitution, he said, "Freedom of thought and conscience is guaranteed."

"When the Special Powers Act of 1979 was enacted, the constitution was under suspension. The current government claims to uphold the rule of law, so why does it favour such a repressive law now?"

An official from the law ministry said, "A law with such special provisions is not prepared with good intention. The motives behind them are often questionable."

Contacted, Additional Secretary (Rules) ANM Moinul Islam of the public administration ministry declined to comment on the matter.

Mokhles Ur Rahman, senior secretary of the ministry, told The Daily Star, "The matter is under the jurisdiction of the government."