Fayokun, Kayode O.2018-12-212018-12-2120122070-1748 · Vol.5 · Nov. 2012 · 89-97DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jssd.v5i1.8http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12280/1320This paper examined the state of the law on removal of public officers from office. It observed that there are competing interests of labour and industry to be served by the rules on disengagement from public office. Workers need security of employment while industries need discipline and efficiency to survive. The courts have striven with changing trends in ensuring balance and justice for both the workers and the industries. The author’s appraisal of case law puts in view the state of both substantive and procedural law on the discipline of public officers as expounded by judges in the exercise of their power of judicial review. On the one hand is the attempt to maintain freedom of contract, which assumes the equal bargaining power of the parties. On the other hand is the need to give effect to statutory provisions which secure the tenure of public officers above that of the ordinary employee through legislation. The paper concluded that the divergent interests are not necessarily in conflict; they can be reconciled and adjusted to be mutually complementary.enAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United Stateshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/Public officersDisciplinePublic managementArticle