What is stopping PM from weeding out ‘deadwood’ from bureaucracy?

ISLAMABAD: Despite a lapse of over three months, the prime minister has yet to approve the recommendations of the high-powered Directory Retirement Board (DBR) that called for premature retirement of almost two dozen senior civil servants.

The minutes of the DBR meeting are already with the Prime Minister’s Office which had some observations and sought explanations about the recommendations of the Board. Although, the observations were responded to by the Establishment Division, the PM’s Office is still sitting on the matter.

When approached, a key PM aide told The News that there is no serious hindrance but he could not explain the reason for the delay. Many of the officers who have been recommended for premature retirement are reportedly using their political connections to thwart the scheme introduced by the present government to get rid of deadwood from the civilian bureaucracy.

The government had convened a meeting of the Directory Retirement Board (DRB) in the third week of April to consider the premature retirement of those officers considered deadwood. The Board continued its deliberation for three days and recommended the retirement of over 20 officers.

The DRB, which considered the cases of BS-20 and above officers of regularly constituted groups/services who had completed 20 years of service, was chaired by the Chairman Federal Public Service Commission and included secretaries of the Establishment Division, Cabinet Division, Finance Division and the Law and Justice Division.

In June, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) also upheld the rules relating to the forced retirement of civil servants, stating that the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, were in accordance with the law.

In a 37-page judgment, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said that the federal government could better examine matters pertaining to the promotion and retirement of civil servants, adding that the courts should not interfere in the government’s policy matters.

The court ruling came after multiple petitions challenging the promulgation of the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020, concerning the retirement of civil servants after the completion of 20 years of service, qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits.

The court also rejected the petitions filed by various bureaucrats, saying that the rules cannot be challenged by the civil servants because they were not against fundamental rights. The judge further said that civil servants had no authority to challenge the government in policy matters. The process of weeding out deadwood from the civilian bureaucracy started following the present government’s decision to prematurely retire those government servants who have completed 20 years of service but are not contributing to the government service, are inefficient or corrupt.

Following changes introduced in the law and civil servants’ rules, the ministries and divisions were asked to constitute the Retirement Boards and Retirement Committees as provided under the rules and start processing the cases as per the law on the basis of material evidence.

All the codal formalities were completed to carry out the process of weeding out dead wood from the civil bureaucracy. With the legal framework in place, those who had completed 20 years of service and were not useful for the government service would be prematurely retired for which instructions to all ministries, divisions and other government agencies were issued by the Prime Minister’s Ofice. The grounds for early retirement were notified and these include officers who:

a) have received average performance evaluation reports (PERs, formerly known as ACRs) or adverse remarks have been recorded in three or more PERs from three different officers;

b) have been twice recommended for supersession by the Central Selection Board (CSB), Departmental Selection Board (DSB) or Departmental Promotion Board (DPB) or twice not recommended for promotion by the high-powered selection board and such recommendations have been approved by the competent authority;

c) have been found guilty of corruption or have entered into plea bargains or voluntary return with NAB or any other investigating agency;

d) have been on more than one occasion placed in category ‘C’ by the CSB, DSB or DPC under the Civil Servants Promotion (BS 18-21) Rules, 2019;

e) have engaged in conduct unbecoming.