Unlike political appointees, who come and go after elections, Senior Executives are career employees who are known for their management skills and direct major government programs and facilities.
It has become knowledge that Politicians in a bid to have their ways faster resort to fix quick approach or what is popularly termed as ‘short cut’. Laid down administrative rules are no longer followed as temptations of either jumping or circumventing them are obeyed.
Before now, disciplining of a civil/public servant has stages laid down to be followed, and which ensures that transparency is maintained in correcting an erring worker.
Nevertheless, the attention and strategies of politicians whose eyes are only on how to gain ground to win their next elections tend to be permanently tilted towards plying civil/public servants to their becks.
And when a public servant decides to play according to the rules, he will be accused of intransigence and therefore disloyal. Processes of investigating him become mechanised to ensure he is out of the way.
‘LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL PANEL ON PUBLIC SERVICE’ on its 7th Core value guiding the conduct of civil servants of may 2004, stated as follows; ‘’ While recognizing that disciplinary cases must be processed expeditiously in order to achieve the desired punitive effect, the Administration is equally mindful of the importance of due process.
A number of safeguards exist to ensure that officers alleged of misconduct are given a fair hearing and sufficient opportunities to defend themselves.
Materials forming part of the disciplinary proceedings are fully disclosed to the accused officer to facilitate his defence and the making of representations. Other safeguards include consultation with the Department of Justice on the sufficiency of evidence to substantiate the alleged misconduct, the appointment of inquiry officers who do not have supervisory responsibilities over the accused officers to determine their culpability, and seeking independent advice from the Public Service.
Eighth says; An officer who is aggrieved by a decision of the disciplinary authority may appeal to the Chief Executive or his delegates. Any such appeals are reviewed by parties not involved in the original proceedings.
The officer may also seek redress through the Court by means of an application for judicial review (“JR”).
“There are many hardworking public servants in the workforce, but they are often overshadowed by bad actors who abuse their position of power,” said Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.),”