Usher reforms, sack later
T.S.R. Subramanian
In principle I am in favour of the new Service Rules for assessing the performance of officials after 15 years of service and the subsequent removal of incompetent officials. But the question is, what will be the measurement system or mechanism for judging the competence of the officials?
There is no denying that there is a lot of deadwood among government officials, but there is also a strong possibility that this norm may be misused by the government, particularly the political leadership. Politicians may try to get rid of competent officials who may oppose any kind of interference from politicians in discharging their duty with integrity and honesty.
Before going ahead with this kind of rule, the government should first bring administrative changes in the basic functioning of its officials. There are three most important things that need to be done immediately to ensure smooth working of the bureaucracy in India.
Firstly, there should be complete stability and security of tenure for government officials. Today there is uncertainty among officials as they fear that they can be transferred by a minister or a chief minister if they don’t follow their directives. This should not happen. An official should be given a fixed tenure to perform honestly and there should be no political interference as far as posting is concerned.
Then there is an urgent need for “professional management of civil services”. Currently, the civil services depend heavily on the political leadership due to which the bureaucratic functioning has become very arbitrary. Even senior officials are unable to take important decisions without consulting the concerned minister or chief minister. There is no doubt that civil servants should be highly accountable but at the same time their working should be kept completely insulated from political interference. One needs to ensure that the working of an honest and competent officer is not influenced by the fear of an adverse noting in the Annual Performance Report.
The third and perhaps most important issue is that every government servant should maintain a complete record of any kind of political interference in his/her functioning. The officer must bring on record any phone call or letter written by anyone — a minister, a chief minister, an MLA or an MP — pressuring him/her to take a wrong decision. This will bring in greater transparency and accountability in the system.
We have included these three critical issues in a public interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of former senior bureaucrats and police officers because these are the core issues that need to be resolved. Such concepts look very good and beautiful on paper but we must ensure that in practice too they remain highly effective and target “bad fellows” while protecting good and competent officers.

(As told to Rajnish Sharma)

Postings should be objective
Ajay Raj Sharma
The career progression in the All-India Services is not scientifically planned. It is done in a haphazard manner. When the bureaucrats are posted in the states, especially in the districts where often the IAS acts as the district magistrate and the IPS officer is the superintendent of police of the particular district, these are actually the “trying and testing” postings, where the situation compels the bureaucrats to perform.
But what happens in a big cadre is that everyone does not get an equal chance to perform. So if you don’t get “trying and testing” postings, then you don’t get a chance to exhibit your skills. This is not the fault of the bureaucrat concerned; it is the government that falters in career planning and
probation.
The postings in any service can be categorised as easy and difficult.
For example, in the police force, there are postings like staff postings or the armed police like the Provincial Armed Constabulary. These are routine jobs and therefore there is little scope to excel. If you perform well, all you get is a good annual report.
But, for example, if any other officer is a superintendent of police in Meerut or Aligarh district, then the chances of showing off his/her skill and talent automatically increase. Therefore, not everyone in the services gets an equal opportunity. In such a scenario, how does one decide which bureaucrat is performing to the best of his/her ability and which bureaucrat is not?
Also, there is the question of political interference. A bureaucrat can be transferred if s/he does not share a good equation with some politicians. Thus s/he will be penalised for no fault. This factor comes in the way of good performance of honest officers and bureaucrats of all services.
An officer may be good at his/her job but what if s/he is not able to please the senior officers? In such a case, an officer may lose out because of hierarchy. After all, not all transfers and postings are based on merit.
Another question that arises here is whether a bureaucrat is flexible or not. If s/he is not, then s/he may move out earlier than s/he is supposed to move out of his/her area of work. This again applies in all services, including IAS and IPS.
So what needs to be looked at is that the career planning and postings of the All-India services should be made more objective. Of course, there are people in the services who are corrupt and make a lot of money by adopting illegal means. A lot of problems can be taken care of within the conduct rules and other rules which already
exist.
The officers are given a 30-year period before their performance is used as a basis for their removal. Such provisions exist. And if these are properly implemented, then we can take care of the problem of non-performing officers.