Civil Service Discipline

It is the intrinsic duty of all civil servants to work with dedication and diligence, and spare no effort in delivering quality service to the community. To maintain the integrity and efficiency of the public service, and sustain the community’s trust in the Government, civil servants have to observe and uphold the highest standard of conduct and discipline at all times. To this end, the Government has put in place a well-established disciplinary system ensuring any civil servant who violates Government rules and regulations is disciplined and those breaking the law are brought to justice.

The Commission collaborates with the Government to maintain the highest standard of conduct in the Civil Service. With the exception of exclusions specified in the PSCO¹³, the Administration is required under s.18 of the PS(A)O¹⁴ to consult the Commission before inflicting any punishment under s.9, s.10 or s.11 of the PS(A)O upon a Category A officer. This covers virtually all officers except those on probation or agreement and some who are remunerated on the Model Scale 1 Pay Scale. At the end of June 2022, the number of Category A officers falling within the Commission’s purview for disciplinary matters was about 123 000.

In considering the submissions of disciplinary cases from B/Ds including their recommendations on the punishment to be meted out, the Commission has to be satisfied of the facts and evidence of the misconduct supported by a full and unbiased investigation while protecting the right to make representations by the accused. The Commission deliberates on the level of punishment judiciously and is on guard constantly to uphold a disciplinary standard that is broadly consistent within the Civil Service but can also respond to changing times and public expectations.

In 2022, the Commission advised on 72 disciplinary cases which had gone through the formal disciplinary procedures prescribed under the PS(A)O. As compared with 2021, there was an increase of 43 disciplinary cases, a large part (17 cases) of which was attributed to the offenders’ non-compliance with the Vaccine Pass arrangement implemented in the year¹⁵. All cases added, the 72 offenders represent only about 0.06% of the 123 000 Category A officers within the Commission’s purview. The percentage has remained low indicating that the great majority of our civil servants have continued to measure up to the very high standard of conduct and discipline required of them. As small as the number may be, individual officers becoming lawbreakers is hardly something we should tolerate. They sit oddly with the claim that our Civil Service is among the best in the world.

A breakdown of the 72 cases advised by the Commission in 2022 by category of criminal offence/misconduct and salary group is at Appendix IX. About half (i.e. 37) of the cases had resulted in the removal of the civil servants concerned from the service by “compulsory retirement”¹⁶ or “dismissal”¹⁷, while more than a quarter (i.e. 20 cases) had resulted in the officers receiving the punishment of “severe reprimand”¹⁸. In 17 cases, a financial penalty was added in the form of a “fine”¹⁹ while seven defaulting officers faced a “reduction in salary”²⁰. In the view of the Commission, these punishments are justified in reflecting the severity of the wrongdoings and underscore the Government’s strong disapproval of the acts. They also signal a loud and clear message to all civil servants of the discipline standard expected of them. The Commission will continue to discharge its function impartially and without fear or favour.

CSB has assured the Commission that it will sustain its efforts in promoting good standards of conduct and integrity at different levels through training, seminars as well as the promulgation and updating of rules and guidelines. As noted, the Bureau has continued to organise targetted experience sharing sessions for officers to learn and become better aware of possible pitfalls encountered in their daily work. The Secretariat on Civil Service Discipline (SCSD) has maintained its out-reach visits to departments for exchanges with departmental managements to explore further scope to speed up and enhance mutual efficiency in processing disciplinary cases. The Commission encourages and supports the continuation of these much needed concerted efforts so that all disciplinary cases can be concluded as expeditiously as possible.

Under the current disciplinary mechanism, summary disciplinary actions in the form of verbal or written warnings²¹ are taken to quickly tackle and correct isolated minor misbehaviour or misdoings. In our observations over the years, some HoDs and HoGs have made effective use of these measures for staff management purpose. However, some others have appeared to over rely and use them as a replacement for tougher actions despite not seeing them achieve the intended effect. In this regard, the Commission has been advocating a more vigorous administration of the summary disciplinary mechanism so that minor misconduct issues can be nipped in the bud with a view to enhancing the good conduct and discipline in the Civil Service as a whole. Instilling and entrenching a service-wide disciplinary standard is thus required to sustain it over time.

The Commission has been working in close partnership with the Government to identify, develop and promote good practices in the management of the Civil Service. The management of staff conduct and discipline is undoubtedly an integral part. Accordingly, the Commission not only deliberates and advises on the appropriate level of punishment on the cases submitted, we are also on the lookout to seek for a better and quicker way of doing things. Our advice covers aspects on the rules, policies and practices in disciplinary management at the systemic level. Personnel assigned and the expertise they possess in investigations and evidence gathering are pivotal to the successful conclusion of disciplinary cases. In the ensuing paragraphs, we will highlight some of the observations and recommendations we have tendered for illustration.

Safe driving is essential for road safety and protection of road users. The Government has been putting much effort to promote road safety through legislation, law enforcement and publicity. Although not a stated requirement, civil servants are expected to set themselves as good examples and act as considerate drivers to the public by complying with traffic regulations and exercising vigilance at all times, whether driving privately or in performing driving duties. The standard of requirements for Government drivers, in particular, has to be set high. As the employer of a large number of drivers, the Government has the added responsibility of managing well the conduct and performance of all driving staff.

While there are stipulated guidelines and benchmarks of punishment in dealing with traffic-related offences/misconduct committed by Government drivers, insufficient regard to timeliness of the management action may undermine the punitive and deterrent effect of the punishment. In one case, a verbal warning was issued to a driver some six months after the conviction of his duty-related traffic offence, and three weeks later he committed another traffic offence. Had the warning been administered close to his offence, the driver would have known earlier the consequence and adverse impact on his career and driven more cautiously.

In three other traffic-related cases of another Department, the Commission noted similar delays in the issuance of warnings and advice²² to drivers ranging from four to six months and in a case one year after the report of the traffic offence. As observed, the Department appeared to have adopted a mechanical “one warning per offence” approach with insufficient regard to the short interval and repeated offences committed by the same driver (four in a year in two cases, and ten in four years in the other). It begs the question as to whether the deterrent purpose of the punishment had been served and whether the drivers had learnt any lessons at all. The Commission had urged the management of the Department concerned to be more alert to repeated offences in deliberating the form and level of punishment to be imposed. Timely and well-considered management decisions will help offending officers understand clearly the standard expected of them and put them on guard.

The Commission accepts that more time is required to consider cases with complications, especially those involving many parties each having a share of responsibilities. However, out-of-time actions and long gaps in between do not speak well about efficiency and may open the Government to legal challenge. The Commission believes streamlining workflow and closer collaborations should help to speed up the processing of cases as shown in the following examples.

In two cases, it took the two Departments six months after obtaining the relevant court documents to submit the straightforward traffic convicted cases to CSB for onward processing on grounds of other competing commitments and stringent staffing resources. In another case, the Department spent months to check and verify the necessary leave and medical record to prepare for the commencement of the formal disciplinary proceedings. Inordinate time was also taken to obtain the statement and explanations from the defaulter. While proper documentation and fair proceedings have to be fully observed, excessive and duplicated procedures run the risk of hampering the efficiency required to uphold the Civil Service disciplinary system.

There are some other cases which by the time they were submitted to the Commission for advice, some two years had lapsed since the commission of the offence. While satisfied that the long time taken involves no dereliction nor evasion of duties on the part of the responsible personnel, the Commission considers that escalations to a higher authority for appropriate intervention and steer should facilitate the early conclusion of these cases. In the long run, CSB should take the lead to review and identify measures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of handling disciplinary cases.

In the meantime, we are pleased to note that more is being done by SCSD to promote greater participation by different levels of staff for experience sharing. More targetted training to equip them not only with the knowledge but also the skills required are also being organised. The Commission is encouraged by the positive response to our suggestion of inviting a representative of a law enforcement agency to speak on investigative techniques in a workshop co-organised with the General Grades Office in January 2023. The Commission will continue to collaborate with CSB and provide feedback and suggestions to facilitate its pursuit of the training initiatives.

Pending criminal and disciplinary investigation/proceedings, management is empowered to invoke s.13 of PS(A)O²³ to interdict an officer from duties and exercising the powers and functions of his public office. While interdiction carries no presumption of guilt and is not a punishment per se, the management should take into account all relevant factors in totality to evaluate the risk involved in allowing an officer to continue to work. An officer should not be re-instated if disciplinary action is likely to be taken with a view to removing him from the service.

In the past two Annual Reports, we have cited a few cases to illustrate the important parameters the management should consider in making the decision. Any possible conflict between the offence/misconduct and the officer’s duties, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence/misconduct laid against the officer, as well as the likely harm/risk to the general public are especially key considerations. As noted, there were still a number of cases in 2022 in which the Departments concerned had not given sufficient weight on these factors whilst deciding on staff interdiction or re-instatement. In one case, a Department had allowed two officers being alleged to have abused their supervisory roles to continue to perform supervisory duties without interdicting them. Instead of interdicting them, the Department only transferred one defaulter to another supervisory post while keeping the other in the same post. The Commission was concerned that the Department’s management measures were insufficient to mitigate the serious conflict of their alleged misconduct with their official duties. The Commission had advised the Department concerned to be more critical in deciding whether or not the defaulting officers should be allowed to continue to perform duties in their occupied posts pending investigation of their misconduct.

In another case, an officer arrested for attacking and wounding his colleague with his work tool at the workplace was re-instated after release from remand by the court. In its assessment, the Department had put weight on the non-custodial court sentence and underestimated the possibility of his reoffending and the physical risk posed to his colleagues. While the defaulting officer was eventually dismissed, any re-instatement in the interim might be mis-interpreted as no disciplinary action would be taken against his violent act. The Department should have considered the seriousness of the offence comprehensively with due regard to the safety of his co-workers. In yet another case involving indecent acts committed in the workplace, the defaulting officer was allowed to continue to work in the same office after the report of his misdeeds to the management. In our view, the management had not duly considered the serious embarrassment and disturbance that such work arrangement might cause to his colleagues and the victims in particular. It also gave staff in the office the wrong impression that he would not be subject to any disciplinary action. The management has the responsibility to look after staff’s well-being and assess any psychological stress the victim had been caused by the indecent behavior of the offender. Upon the Commission’s advice, the Department had quickly arranged for the interdiction of the defaulting officer.

Defaulting officers are personally responsible and have to be held accountable for their misconduct. If the misbehaviour or offences happened in the workplace and are job-related, supervising officers and the management have the duty to identify any breeding grounds or circumstantial factors and to take immediate remedial action to address them in order to prevent similar occurrence in the future.

The case of an officer defrauding the Government and taking possession of the public money payable to a client he served best illustrates why management has to be on constant alert to ensure the robustness of the payment system. It was a reminder to the management that despite the existence of an internal audit/cross-checking mechanism, regular reviews and surprise spot-checks were necessary to ensure that it remains effective. In another case, while the offence was committed in one branch office of the Department, we have advised the management to consider extending the improvement measure introduced as the result of the case to all branches, as the same working procedure and system of control were used by them as well.

Effective daily staff management is key to the maintenance of a high standard of performance and clearly more constructive than taking punishment action after the occurrence of misconduct. The Commission was struck by a case where the supervisors/divisional management of a Department appeared to be oblivious of an officer’s misconduct of being habitually late over a long period of nine months. It was not until the officer had called in sick without any medical proof on more than 20 occasions that the Department finally decided to initiate disciplinary action against the officer. While the defaulting officer was eventually dismissed, by then the problem had already deteriorated and persisted for more than two years. Such wilful disregard of discipline and blatant breaches of the rules governing leave taking reflect poorly not only on the officer concerned but the management capability of her supervisors as well. We appreciate the diverse and geographical distance between the office and the Headquarters of the Department. However, it is not a reason for not managing its staff properly. The Commission had drawn the case to the personal attention to the HoD and invited the Department to conduct a critical and comprehensive review on its staff and performance management system, with a view to upholding the standard of discipline among all staff.