Abstract:
Sri Lanka inherited a tradition of independent Public Service at the time she won her
political freedom from British rule. The administration of the Public Service by an
independent Public Service Commission was the hallmark of this tradition.
Subsequently, with the promulgation of the Republican Constitution of 1972, the Public
Service came under the direct control of the Cabinet. Although public officers in Sri
Lanka held office during pleasure, there are certain legal principles which ensure their
security of tenure. This is particularly evident in the principles that when action is taken
against them, it shall be done in accordance with the rule of law and in terms of the
accepted code of conduct laid down by the Cabinet.
Where a public officer is dissatisfied with any decision taken by a disciplinary authority,
he has certain avenues of redress. The chief mode of redress in this regard is the right to
seek relief on grounds of violation of fundamental rights. Other modes open to them,
though not so specific and definite as in the case of fundamental rights, are nevertheless
beneficial in varying degrees.
The objective of this extended essay is to explain the effectiveness of each of the remedies
available to the public officers seeking redress of their grievances and suggesting
alternatives where appropriate. The findings of this exercise are that each of the
remedies available has its beneficial aspects as well as limitations and shortcomings.
Some are effective but expensive for the litigant. Some are informal and inexpensive but
the findings lack the element of enforceability. Some are only in the nature of
recommendations which mayor may not be accepted by the authorities concerned. On
the whole it would be more appropriate to have a more effective system where the rights
and procedures are specifically mentioned and where the rights of the public officers are
legally enforceable.
