Administrative Discretion - Essay Example

? Administrative Discretion (College) Administrative Discretion Introduction Public employees constitute the of people who work at the public sector under the direct control and administration of government. Although, public employees get comparatively attractive remuneration for their services, they are always vulnerable to salary-cut and other compensations in times of national contingencies. Since the public sector employees play a vital role in the economic growth of a nation, every nation normally formulates special policies for preserving the interests of public employees. However, it seems that various organizational practices and other developments impinge on the worksite interests of public employees. With intent to discuss the issue, this paper will cover the associated terms like administrative discretion, cyber security threats, and statutory protections for public employees. Administrative discretion In the legal context, the term discretion indicates the power to decide or act according to one’s own judgment. Some legal systems like US allow certain discretionary powers to administrative authorities. To illustrate, US law system has framed some broad limits within which an administrative authority can operate. For instance, a statute confers discretion if it is reasonable and is in public interest. To define, the administrative discretion is the expertise of professional expertise and judgment as opposed to strict adherence to regulations or statutes, in making a decision or performing official acts or duties (The Free Dictionary). In other words, when a legal system permits an administrative authority to practice discretion, it is called administrative discretion. The discretionary powers are given to an administrative authority by statute or delegation. It has observed that, generally, broad discretion powers are given to administrative agencies in order to effectively exercise their administrative authority. However, it is held that the discretionary power must not be vague or arbitrary, but it has to be in accordance with legal requirements. US Supreme Court stated that “an administrative agency enjoys wide discretion in ascertaining best way to handle related, yet discrete issues in terms of procedures and priorities” (USLegal). Although, the law imposes certain regulations on the administrative authorities in exercising their discretionary powers, it is often seen that their functions are not in line with law requirements. To illustrate, majority of the authorized persons exercise their discretionary powers to safeguard their selfish interests rather than serving employees’ needs. Kannabiran (2009) points out The Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, A.I.R. (1981) S.C. 1829, a famous Indian case related to wrongful practice of administrative discretion. At the time of the case, an air hostess normal age of retirement was 35 years. However, a regulation of the corporation authorized the managing director to increase the air hostess retirement age up to 45 years. The regulation empowered the managing director to use the provision of discretion on the account of his personal opinion rather than recording specific reasons pertaining to the decision. The regulation lacked specific guidelines and it reflected biased approach and discrimination in the practice of such discretion. In this case, the court held that it clearly indicated a situation of official arbitrariness. Public employees are often affected by the adverse exercise of administrative discretion authority as they are largely employed under administrative agencies. An authority gets the freedom to take action when it is conferred with discretionary power. However, the court can take decisions only in respect of legal validity of those taken actions. Therefore, this provision can be a serious threat to individual liberty especially, public employees’ liberty. Cyber security threats Hackers and spammers are the potential cyber security threats to public employees in this 21st century. In the opinion of Satapathy (2000), nowadays, even strong security measures are unsuccessful to control the unwanted and dreadful cyber activities. Today public employees widely use internet as part of their job. Probably, public employees transfer organizational data using internet facilities such as e-mails. However, recent events suggest than e-mail is not a safe channel for passing confidential data. In 2010, e-mail was widely used as a vector for spreading malicious attacks. For the last few years, e-mails have been widely used to spread Trojans as e-mail attachments. These Trojans enter into personal e-mail accounts and restrict the users from accessing into their accounts. Since public employees use e-mail accounts for official purposes, malicious attacks may adversely affect the safety of such data or information transfers. Every public employee has the legal obligation to ensure the safety of valuable documents which he deals with. Therefore, when malicious attacks threat the safety of valuable documents, it also negatively affects the integrity of the concerned employees. Nowadays, hackers largely use timely topics in order to lure the recipients to open mail and thereby to click on malicious links. Through this practice, hackers get access into personal e-mail accounts so that they can take unfair advantages of others’ valuable documents including official document of public employees. Similarly, it seems that software hackers largely focus on Microsoft properties with intent to check its rapid growth. Evidently, majority of the people use Microsoft products for their compatible features. When hackers produce a series of targeted attack over Microsoft properties, the company may not be able to prevent the malicious attacks effectively. Recently, smartphones are increasingly used for business affairs and hence they have become the focal point for hackers. In short, public employees today widely use modern internet facilities and hence they are more likely to confront with malicious cyber attacks. Statutory protections In olden days, the United States had not given adequate importance on the statutory protection of employees who work in public sector until recently it formulated a number of statutory provisions for public employees with intent to improve their employment policies. Before the formulation of such polices, employers used to terminate their employees without a potential reason. Jain (2007) indicates that the introduction of anti-retaliation provision supported employees in public as well in private sector because these provisions checked employers from terminating their worker without any adequate reason. Generally, employment regulating federal statutes contains such provisions and they mainly work towards the prohibition of employment reprisals. Employees face employment reprisals when they complain about their employer’s breach of statutory duties to a specified public authority. Under such circumstances, the anti-retaliation provision would save the employees from termination. These provisions include the whistleblower provisions in the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act (Government of Canada). These provisions are also beneficial for the employees who have been subjected to retaliation as they also offer compensation for wage losses and seniority. In the view of Krinsky and Reese (2006), the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 also contributes to public employee protection is United States. Under this provision, the Federal public sector employees get much broader protection if they have disclosed or wish to disclose any government wrongdoing. This type of statutory protection would largely encourage public sector employees to disclose government offense without the fear of termination or retaliation. Conclusion Although discretionary powers are granted to administrative agencies with certain legal restrictions, administrative discretion often seriously encroaches into the interests of the public employees. Similarly, cyber security threats also raise challenges to public employees since they are more likely to use internet facilities. However, different statutory protections ensure the overall safety of public sector employees which in turn would enhance the socio-economic stability of the nation. References Jain, E. (2007). “Realizing the potential of the joint harassment/retaliation claim”. The Yale Law Journal, 117, (1), 120-164. Kannabiran, K. (2009). “Judicial meanderings in patriarchal tickets: Litigating sex discrimination in India. Review of Women’s Studies”. Economic & Political Weekly, XLIV, (44), 88-97. Krinsky, J & Reese, E. (2006). “Forging and sustaining labor-community coalitions: The workfare justice movement in three cities”. Sociological Forum. 21, (4), 623-658. Satapathy, C. (2000). “”Impacts of cyber vandalism on the internet”. Economic and Political Weekly. 35, (13), 1059-1061. USLegal. Discretionary Powers. Retrieved from http://administrativelaw.uslegal.com/administrative-agencies/discretionary-powers/ Read More