Public Service Ordinance 2025: Revised twice, yet errors persist

Even after two rounds of revisions, "Public Service (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2025" still contains errors and inconsistencies, with experts warning that the ordinance will remain ineffective unless these flaws are addressed.

In the wake of disruptions in civil administration after the July uprising, the interim government moved to amend the "Government Service Act, 2018" that outlines key issues such as discipline, accountability, and efficiency in public administration.

The public administration ministry issued a gazette on the amendment on May 22. The changes triggered protests among government employees at the Secretariat, prompting the ministry to revise the ordinance. A second amendment was gazetted on July 23.

Yet, errors persist in the revised version, raising questions about the competence of the officials responsible for its drafting, say experts.

Take Section 37(Ka-9) for instance. This section empowers either the "appointing authority" or "the individual framing the charges" to impose penalties on an official found guilty of breaching service rules.

However, allowing "the individual framing the charges" to impose penalties violates Article-135(1) of the constitution, which clearly states that no person holding a civil post shall be dismissed or penalised by anyone other than the appointing authority.

Besides, there is ambiguity regarding the scope for a public servant to seek a review of disciplinary punishment.

Subsections 10 and 11 of the ordinance's Section 37(Ka) lays out punishment for government employees found guilty of misconduct. But there is no mention of Section 37(Ka) in Section 34 and 36 which give employees the right to appeal and seek reviews of the authorities' decisions.

This means, a government employee punished under Section 37 (Ka) may not be able to ask for a review under the two sections.

The ordinance must be revised again, or else employees punished for misconduct will not get a proper opportunity to appeal, said a joint secretary of the public administration ministry, seeking anonymity.

The amended ordinance also introduces a provision for issuing only one show-cause notice to the accused employee before imposing punishment. Typically, such a notice asks the accused to explain why the proposed or any other applicable punishment should not be imposed.

However, if the authorities impose a punishment different from the one mentioned in the notice after receiving a reply from the accused, it would violate Article 135(2) of the constitution.

The Article clearly stipulates that no person shall be dismissed, removed, or subjected to any other punishment without being given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the specific punishment proposed.

There is another inconsistency in the ordinance. It includes the provision already outlined in the existing "Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2018."

Section 37(Ka-1)(a) of the ordinance says disobedience of lawful orders from the authority, or violation of government orders, circulars, and directives, will be considered as misconduct.

However, Rule 2(b) of the Government Servants Rules, 2018 already defines such actions as misconduct.

This means the same offence is covered by two separate legal frameworks, creating a scope for dual punishment.

"This overlap could lead to disparity in punishment for similar offences, effectively introducing a dual penalty system for identical misconduct," said a former secretary currently on post-retirement leave.

When asked about the discrepancies, Cabinet Secretary Sheikh Abdur Rashid, one of three members of the committee that oversaw the amendment process, said, "Since primary responsibility for the ordinance rests with the public administration ministry, it would be appropriate if they comment on this."

Contacted, Mokhles Ur Rahman, senior secretary at the public administration ministry, declined to comment.

Seeking anonymity, one of the officials involved in drafting the ordinance said, "It is true that there are some inconsistencies in the ordinance. We cannot do anything about it unless an order is issued from higher authorities."

WHAT EXPERTS SAY

About the inconsistencies in the ordinance, Firoz Miah, a civil service expert and former additional secretary, said, "If such flaws and errors exist even after scrutiny by a high-level government committee, can it be called anything but incompetence?"

There is no room for haste when it comes to enactment of laws or rules, he noted.

"People who lack understanding or expertise in certain matters should not be given responsibilities in those areas. If, for any reason, a law or regulation needs to be formulated quickly, it is best to consult with relevant experts to minimise the chances of errors."

Echoing his opinion, a retired secretary said, "How could such glaring mistakes and inconsistencies remain in the ordinance even after the involvement of top officials in the process?"

Seeking anonymity, a former Cabinet Division official said, "Questions have been raised as to whether the amendment was at all necessary. Given the confusion among public servants over the amendment, the changes are unlikely to yield any meaningful outcome," he said.