Civil Service Discipline

Civil servants should always uphold the highest standards of conduct, honesty and probity in discharging their public duties as well as in their private lives. They are liable to disciplinary action if they fail to observe any government regulations or official instructions, misconduct themselves in any manner, commit a criminal offence (whether related to their public duties or not) or, by their actions, bring the Civil Service into disrepute. The Civil Service has put in place a well-established disciplinary system whereby allegations of misconduct will be promptly investigated and disciplinary sanction strictly administered upon finding a civil servant culpable of misconduct after fair proceedings. Observance of natural justice apart, all disciplinary investigations are conducted fairly and impartially in full compliance with the due process and procedural propriety prescribed. Although the Commission cannot set a pledge time in tendering advice on disciplinary cases as the complexity of each case is different, we have emphasised to B/Ds the importance of expeditious action. Only by taking timely action and meting out of appropriate punishment will the punitive and deterrent effect be served.

The Commission collaborates with the Administration to maintain the highest standard of conduct in the Civil Service. With the exception of exclusions specified in the PSCO¹⁸, the Administration is required under s.18 of the PS(A)O¹⁹ 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 2019, the number of Category A officers falling within the Commission’s purview for disciplinary matters was about 117 000.

In examining disciplinary cases, the Commission has always endeavoured to ensure that the level of punishment proposed is justified on the basis of the facts and evidence presented. While the nature and gravity of the misconduct or offence are our primary considerations, we are also mindful of the need to maintain service-wide consistency and parity in treatment. We note and agree that precedent cases provide useful benchmarks in considering the appropriate levels of punishment. However, in order to meet changing circumstances and the rising public expectations of the Civil Service, punishment standards have to be kept under regular review.

In 2019, the Commission advised on the punishment of 36 disciplinary cases which represents about 0.03% of the 117 000 Category A officers within the Commission’s purview. This figure has remained consistently 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. CSB has assured the Commission that it will sustain its efforts in promoting good standards of conduct and integrity at all levels through training, seminars as well as the promulgation and updating of rules and guidelines. The Commission is pleased to note CSB’s continued efforts in organising various training and experience sharing sessions where interesting cases were shared and the disciplinary system explained. Besides keeping the Departmental Secretaries abreast of common issues of concerns and new guidelines, the Bureau has also arranged targeted sessions for frontline and junior/middle-ranking officers to alert them to vulnerable areas requiring extra care and attention.

A breakdown of the 36 cases advised by the Commission in 2019 by category of criminal offence/misconduct and salary group is at Appendix IX. Of these 36 cases, ten had resulted in the removal of the civil servants concerned from the service by “compulsory retirement”²⁰ or “dismissal”²¹. There were 15 cases resulting in the punishment of “severe reprimand”²² plus financial penalty in the form of a “fine”²³ or “reduction in salary”²⁴ which is the heaviest punishment next to removal from the service and “reduction in rank”²⁵. These figures bear testimony to the resolute stance the Administration has taken against civil servants who have misbehaved and misconducted themselves. It also underscores the Administration’s determination to uphold and safeguard the highest discipline standard in the Civil Service. The Commission will continue to discharge its function and tender advice on disciplinary cases without fear or favour.

Apart from deliberating and advising on the appropriate level of punishment to be meted out in each and every disciplinary case submitted to it for advice, the Commission also makes observations on cases and initiates discussions with CSB to explore further scope to streamline the disciplinary process and procedures to achieve greater efficiency. Indeed, many of the changes already implemented and some of the proposals now being studied arise from the Commission’s initiatives. The main comments, observations and recommendations in the discipline field made by the Commission in the past year are set out in the ensuing paragraphs.

Taking prompt and timely action in processing disciplinary cases with appropriate punishment meted out is essential to the fair and effective administration of the disciplinary system. Delay in action not only weakens the credibility of the system and the punitive and deterrent effect of the punishment, it is also unfair to keep the accused in waiting. The Administration’s credibility of not tolerating acts of misconduct and in upholding a high standard of probity in the Civil Service is also at stake.

During the year, the Commission noted with concern that a considerable number of disciplinary cases had taken a very long period of time to conclude. In three cases submitted by a department, the average time taken to conclude its disciplinary recommendations was about 1.5 years despite the fact that the criminal offences committed by the defaulting officers were relatively minor in nature. Urgency of action was significant as two of these defaulting officers were due to commence their pre-retirement leave in a few months’ time when the cases were submitted to the Commission for advice. The concerned department attributed the long processing time to the heavy workload and preoccupations of other work commitments. In the case of two other departments, an even longer period of three years was noted. Both departments explained that time had to be taken to conduct investigations into the alleged acts of misconduct, including the gathering of all relevant information and materials relating to the cases, as well as allowing the defaulting officers to make representations before holding the inquiry hearings. While accepting that time is required to observe the due process and proper procedures, the Commission has asked the concerned departments to explore scope for further improvements. We have also invited CSB and the Secretariat on Civil Service Discipline (SCSD) to provide assistance and policy guidance to the departments to expedite their processing of disciplinary cases in future.

The Commission observed that the prolonged processing time taken in some cases might have been caused by the lack of experience of the subject officers in handling formal disciplinary cases. In response to the Commission’s concern, CSB had incorporated the Commission’s comments and promulgated in July 2019 a set of “Points to Note” on conducting disciplinary investigations for B/Ds’ reference. This set of points to note aims to assist B/Ds in conducting investigation into allegations of misconduct for the purpose of taking formal disciplinary action under s.9 or s.10 of the PS(A)O. The principles and good practices in conducting investigations are illustrated with examples. Apart from emphasising the need to plan and organise inquiries promptly, B/Ds are reminded that decisive management action to proceed with disciplinary action and supervision are also key to bringing the disciplinary cases to early completion. In November 2019, SCSD conducted a briefing to Departmental Secretaries for practical exchange of the promulgated guidelines. The Commission appreciates the efforts taken and looks forward to reviewing disciplinary policies and procedures continually in conjunction with CSB.

Undoubtedly, defaulting officers have to be held directly accountable for acts of duties they had wrongly done or not done. However, in all fairness to the accused, the Commission is duty bound to also consider if there are mitigating circumstances which should be taken into account in advising on the level of punishment. In this process, we also examine the extent, if any, the management responsibility and supervisory accountability at play. Indeed, supervisors have a duty to supervise their staff, monitor their conduct and performance, be alert to signs of malpractice or poor performance, and take prompt and decisive actions to tackle the problems. Effective staff management is key to the maintenance of a high standard of performance and clearly more constructive than taking punishment action after the event. Omission and non-performance of duties especially committed over a period of time should have been detected and avoided if supervisors could discharge their supervisory and monitoring responsibilities properly and diligently. In a disciplinary case, the Commission noted that the defaulting officer had overlooked and neglected to process payments in respect of services satisfactorily completed resulting in outstanding payments due to the contractor for more than three years. The supervisors of the defaulting officer were unaware of the prolonged outstanding payments until the contractor reported the case to the management of the department. The case not only exposed the department’s inadequate staff supervision, it also called into question the effectiveness of the monitoring and quality control mechanism for service delivery. The Commission noted the subsequent actions taken by the department to revamp the overall control and monitoring system with supervision and management of frontline operations tightened up. The Commission has advised the department to follow through the new measures introduced and provide regular training/briefing to line supervisors in enhancing their staff supervision and performance management work.

With the advent and wide adoption of information technologies for personal communications and businesses, provision of public information and services on the internet by the Government has likewise expanded. While general guidelines have been issued by the Government Chief Information Officer (GCIO) to all officers regarding safe access and proper use of the internet, the Commission was invited to advise on a number of disciplinary cases involving the misuse of official internet services. While the improper and excessive use of the internet service for personal purposes are clearly in breach of CSRs for which the officers concerned are liable to discipline sanctions, the Commission is more concerned about such acts posing security risks to the Government’s information technology (IT) infrastructure, facilities and systems. More effective measures are also necessary to strengthen staff’s awareness on the proper use of internet service and the possible consequences on any abusive use of such service. GCIO agrees with the Commission on the need to strengthen staff’s awareness and has promulgated an updated set of guiding principles on the proper use of internet service in March 2019. In particular, staff’s attention was drawn to the dire consequences and possible disciplinary liability in contravention. In the third quarter of 2019, GCIO commenced an overall review of the prevailing policies/guidelines on IT security and will further enhance the guidelines on the proper use of Government internet service. The Commission looks forward to the promulgation of appropriate guidelines to assist all officers in the proper and safe use of the internet service.