Retirement, dismissal, and immortal tale of administrative grace

There is a well-known Bengali proverb: "All is well that ends well." In our administrative reality, however, it may now deserve a revised version: "If it ends with a promotion, who cares about the past?" Merit, responsibility, competence, and discipline seem increasingly destined for the dictionary rather than the civil service. In practice, they have been replaced by a mysterious philosopher's stone whose touch can breathe new life into retirement and transform dismissal from service into a stepping stone to promotion.

The government's promotion notification issued on 9 July provides ample reason for public astonishment. Among those promoted to the rank of Joint Secretary is an official who had already retired. Another beneficiary is an individual who had once been dismissed from service on charges of negligence, reportedly following the Prime Minister's directive. This is more than an administrative decision; it resembles an extraordinary tale of fate, where every chapter of the past is erased and only one word remains on the final page: promotion.

Unusual events are not new in the history of public administration. Yet promoting a retired official and placing a dismissed employee in the same category is undoubtedly remarkable. One is compelled to ask: Are retirement and dismissal merely temporary interruptions? Does the grand festival of promotion wash away all past failures, misconduct, and accountability in a single stroke?

At the lower levels of the bureaucracy, even a minor irregularity can trigger immediate departmental action. Small mistakes often derail an employee's entire career. Yet at the higher echelons, the language of rules appears to change. Negligence, disciplinary action, or even dismissal no longer seems to be the final word. The final word is the possibility that, one day, your name may appear in a promotion gazette.

This is a lesson in optimism that is perhaps absent even from the curriculum of the Public Administration Training Academy. Young officers may now conclude that patience is more valuable than performance. Whatever happens during one's career, there is no reason to lose hope. Retirement? Not a problem. Dismissal? Perhaps only temporary. No one knows when the deity of promotion will smile upon them.

One cannot help but express gratitude to those responsible for these promotions. Such generosity is rare in administrative history. They do not dwell on the thorns of the past; they see only the flowers of future potential. They remember those who are no longer in service. They extend their benevolence even to those once removed from office. Such magnanimity would indeed be admirable—were it not for the fact that it raises troubling questions about administrative justice.

The issue is not promotion itself. The issue is the standard by which promotions are granted. Public administration is not a domain of personal favour. It is an institutional framework in which every decision sets a precedent for future generations. If punishment for negligence ultimately culminates in promotion, what becomes of the principle of accountability? If retirement does not prevent advancement, what meaning remains in evaluating the performance of serving officers?

The strength of a civil service lies in its credibility. A diligent, honest, and unassuming officer may devote decades to public service without receiving the promotion they deserve, simply because fortune never favoured them. Meanwhile, another individual, despite a history of controversy, disciplinary action, or dismissal, may wear the garland of promotion. This is not merely a personal injustice; it sends a silent yet powerful message throughout the administrative culture: merit alone is not always enough.

Ordinary citizens do not understand the complexities of official files and administrative procedures. They judge the system by its outcomes. When they see that someone who was once disciplined is later rewarded, they naturally ask: Was the punishment merely symbolic? Is accountability nothing more than a phrase in official press releases?

In a democratic state, preserving the dignity of the civil service is the government's responsibility. Promotion is not an act of charity; it is the state's recognition of competence, integrity, and professional excellence. If that recognition becomes clouded by controversy, the damage extends far beyond a handful of officials and it erodes public confidence in the administrative system itself.

A modest proposal may therefore be offered. If this new era of generosity has truly begun, perhaps the government should also consider introducing awards such as the "Dismissed Officers' Welfare Medal," the "Post-Retirement Advancement Honour," or the "Promotion Despite Negligence Award." At the very least, such honours would preserve a sense of humour.

Yet governing a state is not a matter of satire. The foundation of public administration rests upon justice, transparency, and accountability. If promotion notifications call those foundations into question, then beneath the laughter lies a profound concern. For in the end, it is the state that pays the price of flawed administrative decisions, and the true owners of that state are its people.

Author: Special Correspondent, Pratidiner Bangladesh.