Giving no quarter to unruly civil servants

Amid the brouhaha of demands and protest programmes both on the streets and indoors raised by every conceivable social and political quarter in the country, the civil servants are learnt to have recently joined the fray. But that is against the existing service rules, the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules-1979. As reports go, some members of the civil bureaucracy have reportedly been holding meetings voicing their so-called grievances and, in certain cases, even protesting government decisions, which contravenes the accepted norms guiding the setup. Indubitably, such activities of the civil servants in violation of the mentioned service rules amount to professional misconduct and hence liable for disciplinary action by the government. Unsurprisingly, the public administration ministry of the government in a circular issued on December 31 directed the officials from 26 cadres so found involved in protests over rank and promotion to comply with the service rules. Otherwise, they would face disciplinary actions accordingly as provided by the Discipline and Appeal Rules-2018, the government circular further adds.
Now the basic question is what did embolden some members of the civil servants to engage in such unprofessional and anarchic behaviour that resembles activities of the trade unions knowing full well that such union-like behaviour is not allowed in the civil administration. It has a precedent. In 1996, the members of the civil bureaucracy instigated by some politically motivated senior bureaucrats and supported by the then-political opposition against organised a demonstration in violation of the service rules against the then-elected government. The opposition that later assumed power rewarded the top civil servants who incited the disorderly activities in violation of all the norms of civil administration. Such politicisation of the bureaucracy took its extreme form during the now fallen regime of Sheikh Hasina. Interestingly, hers was the first government in the 1990s to have rewarded the creators of indiscipline and disorder in the civil administration in 1996. To all appearances, it is that tainted legacy which some in the current administration have been holding onto and trying to achieve their ill-conceived end.
Whatever are their said demands and grievances, if any, they should have raised, as is the norm, through proper channel. Breaking such norm clearly points to a breach in the hierarchical chain of the civil bureaucracy created by the previous autocratic regime when the head of the government was in the habit of violating all the long-established conventions to run the administration. In fact, in this manner, the bureaucracy was made to do the bidding of the political bigwigs to plunder the state resources, help conduct rigged elections and also facilitate the crony capitalists' criminal activities of looting public property including banks at will.
The members of the bureaucracy thus spoiled were, as expected, engaged in limitless corrupt practices themselves and desire the government continues to do such favour. Obviously, those in the civil administration that got used to such undue privilege overstepping the long-practised pecking order have naturally vitiated the system so much that they now dare challenge the incumbent interim government. The protests started, as reported, following the Administration Reform Commission's proposal to revise the promotion ratio for the posts of deputy secretaries, which was previously unequal among the administration and non-administration cadre officials, and make it equal. But any move to pressure the government to influence any decision it might make through protest demos or discussions by civil servants is unacceptable under existing rules. Any attempt at creating disorder and indiscipline in the public administration must be nipped in the bud. It is hoped that the interim government will stick to its stance, and unruly elements in the civil bureaucracy would be given no quarter.