Dhaka, Bangladesh – The Government of Bangladesh has enacted a significant legal change affecting its vast bureaucracy through the Public Service (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2025. Published in the Bangladesh Gazette on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, this ordinance introduces sweeping changes to the Public Service Act, 2018, granting the government extensive new powers to discipline and terminate public servants.
The ordinance, issued by the President under Article 93(1) of the Constitution, primarily substitutes Section 41 of the original act with a new set of “Special Provisions for Termination and Imposition of Penalty.” This move is being framed by some as a necessary step towards ensuring accountability and efficiency, while others raise serious concerns about the potential for misuse, the erosion of job security, and the undermining of civil service independence.
Here is a comprehensive analysis of the key changes and their potential good and bad impacts.
Key Changes Introduced by the Ordinance
The core of the amendment lies in the new Section 41. It gives the government overriding authority, stating its provisions apply “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force.”
The key changes are:
- Broad Grounds for Termination: The government can now penalize or terminate a public servant if it is satisfied that:
- (a) It is not expedient to retain the employee in service in the interest of the security of the State.
- (b) The conduct of the employee is such that it is not expedient to retain them in service.
- (c) The employee has been absent from duty without authorization for a prolonged period.
- (d) For any other reason deemed appropriate by the government.
- Bypassing the Show-Cause Notice: While the ordinance generally requires issuing a show-cause notice and giving the accused employee a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, it includes a critical exception. Under sub-section (3), the appointing authority can impose a penalty without any show-cause notice if it is satisfied that “it is not reasonably practicable” to provide one. In such cases, the authority must record its reasons in writing.
- Limited and Final Appeal Process:
- An employee penalized under this section can appeal to the appellate authority within 30 working days.
- Crucially, if an order is issued by the President, no appeal can be filed against it in any court. However, the employee can file for a review of the order with the President within 30 working days.
- The ordinance explicitly states that the mechanisms of appeal and review provided within it are the final avenues for redress, effectively limiting judicial oversight.
- Strict Timelines for Inquiry: The ordinance mandates that any inquiry committee formed must submit its report within 14 working days, with a possible extension of another 7 working days. This is aimed at expediting disciplinary proceedings.
Potential Positive Impacts
Proponents of the ordinance would argue that these changes are designed to create a more disciplined, efficient, and accountable civil service.
- Enhanced Accountability: The new provisions provide a swift mechanism to remove officials who are corrupt, grossly inefficient, or insubordinate. The lengthy, often-abused procedural delays that previously protected underperforming employees can now be bypassed.
- Strengthening National Security: The specific clause regarding the “security of the State” gives the government a clear and powerful tool to act against officials suspected of being involved in espionage, sedition, or activities that compromise national interests.
- Curbing Indiscipline: The rule targeting prolonged unauthorized absence directly addresses a common administrative headache, enforcing better discipline within government offices.
- Increased Efficiency: The strict 14-day timeline for inquiries forces a quick resolution to disciplinary cases, preventing them from languishing for years and allowing the administration to function more smoothly.
Potential Concerns and Criticisms
Despite the potential benefits, the ordinance has raised significant alarm among legal experts, human rights advocates, and public servants themselves.
- Erosion of Job Security: The constitutional guarantee of job security for public servants is severely weakened. The grounds for termination, especially “unbecoming conduct” and “any other reason deemed appropriate,” are extremely broad and subjective. This could create a climate of fear, where officials feel constantly vulnerable.
- High Potential for Misuse and Political Victimization: The sweeping powers could be weaponized to target honest officials, whistleblowers, or those who do not toe the political line of the ruling party. The phrase “if the government is satisfied” is a subjective standard that can be easily abused to settle personal or political scores.
- Violation of Natural Justice: The ability to bypass the show-cause notice is a stark departure from the fundamental legal principle of audi alteram partem (let the other side be heard). While the authority must record its reasons, the accused is denied a basic right to defend themselves before a decision is made, concentrating immense power in the hands of the appointing authority.
- Undermining Bureaucratic Independence: A key function of a permanent bureaucracy is to provide neutral and impartial advice. Fearing arbitrary dismissal, civil servants may become overly compliant and hesitant to offer advice that is politically unpalatable, leading to a politicized and less effective administration.
- Ousting Judicial Review: Barring court appeals against the President’s decision on a review application is a major concern. It removes a vital check and balance on executive power, leaving aggrieved employees with no independent judicial body to turn to for justice.
Conclusion
The Public Service (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2025, represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between the state and its employees. It is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it holds the promise of a more responsive and accountable administration capable of weeding out corruption and inefficiency. On the other hand, its broad, subjective language and the curtailment of due process and judicial review pose a significant threat to the independence, morale, and security of the entire civil service.
The ultimate impact of this ordinance will depend entirely on its implementation. If used judiciously and in good faith to uphold public interest, it could bring positive reforms. However, if wielded as a tool of control and victimization, it risks damaging the very foundation of good governance in Bangladesh. The nation’s administrative and legal circles will be watching its application with keen interest and considerable apprehension.
