PARLIAMENT passed the Sarkari Chakri Bill-2018 with a discriminatory provision, which makes it mandatory for the Anti-Corruption Commission to take permission from the appropriate authorities before arresting any government official on charges related to their job. The Bill was passed by voice vote despite objections by some 10 lawmakers from the main opposition Jatiya Party and one independent MP, as per local media reports.
The law says public servants cannot be arrested until a court frames charges against them. But before charges are framed, they can be arrested only after getting permission from the appropriate authorities. The lawmakers said the provision that makes it compulsory for the ACC to have approval before detaining any public servant “is a black provision and is in conflict with the Constitution”. Under the law, the civil servants will be suspended initially and will lose their jobs if they are given capital punishment or punishment of more than one year in jail. However, they will face departmental action if they are given jail sentence below one year.
At the moment, their service is regulated under various laws. Once the President signs the new law, all issues relating to their jobs will fall under the scope of this law. The retirement age remains unchanged at 59 while it is 60 for freedom fighters. However, the government can send a public servant into forced retirement after 25 years of service without showing any reason. They can also seek voluntarily retirement after 25 years.
The lawmakers have failed to understand that while anyone, including themselves, can be arrested without prior approval, only a certain group of individuals have been granted such a privilege. So if even lawmakers can be arrested without prior governmental approval, why should public servants is made immune to this?
We know very well that corruption exists in the public sector. Such a discriminatory law will only embolden those who are corrupt to continue their dishonest practices. Instead of strengthening the ACC with regard to the public servants, it has been weakened. This law has made the government officials “super citizens”, which may create a class system in the society. This is totally against the spirit of the Constitution.
Such a discriminatory provision needs to be amended.
The law says public servants cannot be arrested until a court frames charges against them. But before charges are framed, they can be arrested only after getting permission from the appropriate authorities. The lawmakers said the provision that makes it compulsory for the ACC to have approval before detaining any public servant “is a black provision and is in conflict with the Constitution”. Under the law, the civil servants will be suspended initially and will lose their jobs if they are given capital punishment or punishment of more than one year in jail. However, they will face departmental action if they are given jail sentence below one year.
At the moment, their service is regulated under various laws. Once the President signs the new law, all issues relating to their jobs will fall under the scope of this law. The retirement age remains unchanged at 59 while it is 60 for freedom fighters. However, the government can send a public servant into forced retirement after 25 years of service without showing any reason. They can also seek voluntarily retirement after 25 years.
The lawmakers have failed to understand that while anyone, including themselves, can be arrested without prior approval, only a certain group of individuals have been granted such a privilege. So if even lawmakers can be arrested without prior governmental approval, why should public servants is made immune to this?
We know very well that corruption exists in the public sector. Such a discriminatory law will only embolden those who are corrupt to continue their dishonest practices. Instead of strengthening the ACC with regard to the public servants, it has been weakened. This law has made the government officials “super citizens”, which may create a class system in the society. This is totally against the spirit of the Constitution.
Such a discriminatory provision needs to be amended.
