The right to serve in a public post is aimed at guaranteeing the people the opportunity for public service in accordance with laws and regulations. Such a right concerns the people’s right to work and equal protection under law and the state shall enact statutes protecting the rights of civil servants regarding, for example, employment, appointment, discipline, retirement and relief pension, the exercise of public authority and the fulfillment of the state’s duties. The (various) types of discipline of civil servants are punishments imposed by the state on a civil employee for his/her violations of law and neglect of duty. Such discipline is necessary for the superiors to preserve the power of oversight, and their exercise may, in view of the nature of the disciplinary measures and within a reasonable extent, be conferred to the superiors. A discharge decision made by either a central or a local administrative agency in accordance with the provisions of the Public Functionaries Merit Evaluation Act or other relevant laws and regulations carrying the effects of restricting the right of people to serve in public post(s) is, in essence, disciplinary. The causes for a discharge must be stipulated by statute so that the intent of Article 23 of the Constitution can be preserved. Whenever the law authorizes the competent agency to promulgate supplemental rules (See the Reasoning of this Yuan Interpretation No. 443) for restricting such a right to serve in public post(s) guaranteed by Article 18 of the Constitution, the purpose, scope and contents of such an authorization has to be concrete and clear. Article 12, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, of the Public Functionaries Merit Evaluation Act prescribes that agencies may record two major demerits at one time in an evaluation for causes. Paragraph 2 of said Article prescribes that the criteria for recording two major demerits at one time should be stipulated by the Ministry of Civil Service (by rules). Such a discharge decision is a primary restriction on the people’s right to serve in public post(s); thus, its causes should be prescribed by law. The abovementioned statute does not concretely and clearly set up the criteria for a discharge and thus is contrary to the Interpretation rendered above. In addition, where the causes for a disciplinary decision are stipulated in abstract concepts by the law, either in open-ended or general clauses, their meaning shall be intelligible to and foreseeable by the regulated civil servants, and be verifiable by the courts in judicial review. As a discharge decision against a civil servant will restrict the right of the people to serve in public posts guaranteed by the Constitution, an agency intending to take such an action must follow due process of law. Such due process of law includes composing an unbiased committee for reaching the decision whose members should be appointed by the head of the agency and elected by the employees in roughly equal ratio; providing the employee to be discharged with a chance to present or rebut; making the decision in written form with accompanying reasons as well as instructions regarding the means, time period and competent agency for appeal; and establishing relevant systems for adequate protection. Furthermore, the discharged employee is entitled to appeal pursuant to the law and the discharge decision can be enforced only when it is finalized. The relevant laws and regulations should be reviewed and revised in accordance with this Interpretation, whereas those contrary to this Interpretation shall become void within two years from the date of this Interpretation.