Saying no to a political boss is not so difficult, but the system that has evolved over the years has evolved has made it almost impossible to do so. The main issue is concentration of power of transfer, promotion and suspension with a political boss. In the UK, from where we have copied the system of an apolitical civil service, these powers don’t lie with the minister. We have taken the system from them, but not the checks and balances. I believe the power to suspend should be taken away from the state governments. This power should not remain with them at all.
The suspension should be dealt with as the major punishments are being dealt with. For major punishments, a reference has to be made to the Central government, which then consults the UPSC. And only after this consultation process, a punishment is awarded.
The problem is that the Central government lacks political will and power to take decisions. I feel more pity on this latest episode of Noida SDM Durga Shakti Nagpal. I had believed that a young chief minister, Akhilesh Yadav, who has travelled and studied abroad, must have been exposed to world and would act in a more mature and efficient way. But to my dismay, he has failed to keep up to the expectations. His working style seems no different from other political bosses, who breathe at the neck of bureaucracy.
I have encountered a number of incidents, where I had to look into the eyes of political bosses and tell them that they are wrong. I put in my papers on the issue of Babri Masjid.
When my recommendations were not accepted and attempts were made to fix responsibilities somewhere else, I felt it was much easy to quit, rather trample your consciences.
I have mentioned this episode in my autobiography in detail. I took a principled stand. My tiff with Reliance is also well known, when I was petroleum secretary. And how I was, victimised, removed and transferred is part of history. Lots of water has flown since then, but nothing has changed for the politicians and bureaucracy.
Constitutional provisions and legal rights are available to officers, but they have to prove a mala fide intention of government before the high court or the supreme court. That is nearly impossible. Unless system is changed, these legal rights are of no help. In 2004, I along with another senior colleague from Andhra Pradesh, Dr EAS Sharma, filed a public interest litigation before the supreme court seeking good governance as a fundamental right of every Indian citizen.
Later, the judiciary showed pro-active approach towards other PILs say in case of police reforms, but maybe we were ahead of times, the apex court rejected our PIL. Out PIL had highlighted the importance of independent, impartial, non-political, objective and fearless civil service in the scheme of the system The apex court also held that it would look into only individual cases of injustice and not institutional and systemic ones.
My suggestions in the PIL are relevant even now. We had suggested a ban on extensions and re-employment of government officers after retirement, publication of annual returns of movable and immovable property along with details of departmental actions against government officers on the government website and so on, to improve the functioning of the civil services.
There are voices from political establishment that they are accountable to public, as they go to public after every five years by contesting elections, and a bureaucrat is not accountable. That is far from truth. Bureaucracy works in a framework of law. It has checks and balances. Judiciary overlooks its functioning. It is ludicrous to say, officialdom is not answerable to anybody and if a long rope is given to them, they will ruin the system. A bureaucrat should definitely be held responsible if he causes loss to the state by mala fide actions or omissions and should be liable for punishment.
Our predicament is we borrowed the apolitical civil service system from British, but didn’t follow their good practices. We have not followed rules of the game. In the UK, it is the committee of top civil service officers that decides on promotions, transfers etc. There is no interference from politicians. The minister, even the prime minister, there have rarely overturned notes of secretaries. In the US, there is a different system. Bureaucrats are political appointees and they change with the takeover of new government. We now seem to be in the middle of British and American systems. We have apolitical civil service on papers, but make them political during services.
Time has come to have a fresh look at the All India Services. When it was introduced, the then home minister, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, specifically said keeping in view the conditions in India, an apolitical civil service was need of hour. There is need to take a firm stand and discourage its alignment with any political party or ideology. A lateral induction is not possible in our system. It will raise many concerns. There is need to set up a committee of officers to decide on transfers, promotions, suspensions and other punishments..
Dr Madhav Godbole, former home secretary. (As told to dna)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}