THIS is apropos the news ‘Civil service reforms are old wine in new bottle: observers’ (Jan 22). The so-called drastic civil service reforms unveiled by the government have focussed on two main areas — early forced retirement of delinquent officers, and tough criteria for promotion of officers.

In addition to an all-embracing and all-encompassing Civil Servant Act, 1973, there are other civil service rules, civil service regulations and civil service policy instructions contained in very exhaustive details in the Fundamental Rules & Supplementary Rules, 1922, Civil Service Regulations (updated in 1977) and a voluminous civil service compendium titled ‘Civil Establishment Code’ (Estacode), which is euphemistically called the ‘bible of civil services’.

Besides, there are other special laws covering appointments, transfers, conduct, seniority, promotion, termination, pension etc. related to the civil servants. These rules comprehensively cover each and every aspect of civil service.

Promotion policies framed by the government from time to time and lastly framed through the Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019, by superseding previous promotion policies, contain all the relevant provisions to cater to issues related to clearance, deferment and supersession of promotion of officers.

The Central Selection Board has all the discretionary powers to clear, defer or supersede an officer for promotion in the light of available rules and instructions in accordance with the merit of each case.

Similarly, the erstwhile Efficiency & Disciplinary Rules, 1973, (repealed by E&D Rules, 2020) had all the relevant provisions which empowered appropriate competent authorities to take expeditious and judicious decisions within a stipulated time against delinquent officers. Even the highest penalty of dismissal from service can be imposed upon a guilty officer within just 15 days through a summary procedure.

Plea bargain and voluntary return being trumpeted very loudly as the basis of new reforms are already covered in the definition of misconduct given under Rule 2(a) of the Government Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973, which means conduct prejudicial to good order of service discipline or contrary to Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964 or unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman. Disciplinary proceedings against officers found guilty of plea bargain and voluntary return could be conducted under the provisions of E&D Rules, 1973, without any legal hindrance.

Consecutive adverse remarks or average remarks in the annual performance evaluation reports of an officer or his/her supersession of promotion due to unsatisfactory service record abundantly makes it crystal-clear that the officer is inefficient in terms of the E&D Rules, 1973. Such a conduct is one of the grounds given in the E&D Rules for proceeding against such an officer.

It is beyond comprehension of a prudent person that why in the presence of such exhaustive and all-encompassing rules and regulations, ‘fresh’ reforms were needed to be introduced in the civil services.

Muhammad Nadeem Butt

Additional Secretary

Government of Balochistan

Quetta

(2)

THIS is apropos the news ‘Civil service reforms are old wine in new bottle: observers’ (Jan 22). According to a former bureaucrat who had served in the Establishment Division and is well-versed with the civil service laws, most of these reforms were chalked out in the Musharraf era and had created unrest within the bureaucracy.

Promotion and transfers of officials should be based solely on merit, and mid-career and senior-level refresher courses should be part of the service. Such steps can help attract the best individuals to the civil services.

Abbas R. Siddiqi

Lahore

Published in Dawn, February 9th, 2021