Ensuring Fixed Tenure for Bureaucrats Essay for UPSC : For a system of government to function well, it is imperative that the bureaucracy is ensured operational autonomy to work impartially and effectively to realise the various objectives as are required in the public interest. Such autonomy could only be ensured if they are cushioned against my undue influences. However, this is not what usually happens in this country as reflected in myriad instances. And the most regular weapon used to bring an upright bureaucrat around is the so-called ‘undesirable’ postings and transfers.
Ensuring Fixed Tenure for Bureaucrats Essay for UPSC
For a system of government to function well, it is
imperative that the bureaucracy is ensured operational autonomy to work
impartially and effectively to realise the various objectives as are required
in the public interest. Such autonomy could only be ensured if they are
cushioned against my undue influences. However, this is not what usually
happens in this country as reflected in myriad instances. And the most regular
weapon used to bring an upright bureaucrat around is the so-called ‘undesirable’
postings and transfers.
An honest and non-pliable officer being hounded out through
his career by way of frequent transfers not something new. We have all been
witness of such news which has become quite mundane by now. Civil servants like
Ashok Khemka and Sanjeev Chaturvedi immediately come to our mind. The Damocles’
Sword of transfer has often been used as a potent and effective weapon by the
political class against pour famed steel frame which slowly but surely is
alleged to be succumbing to relentless chipping at its foundations.
The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgement on the 31st of
October, 2013, issued directives to the Central and State government to ensure
that all civil servants be given a ‘minimum assured tenure’ at a particular
posting before they are transferred, so they can work effectively. It also
ruled that a Civil Services Board [CSB], comprising senior bureaucrats, be
formed at the Centre, in each state and Union Territory to advise the
government on matters such as postings, transfers and disciplinary action. The
SC also directed the Centre and state governments to pass an order within three
months on giving fixed tenure to civil servants, i.e., by the 31st of January,
2014.
The verdict, which is on the line of Apex Court’s earlier
order on police reforms for giving fixed tenure to senior police officers in
the Prakash Singh case, is likely to go a long way in ensuring functional
freedom to the Indian bureaucracy. The judgement came in response to a public
interest litigation [PIL] filed by 83 retired bureaucrats led by the former Union
Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramaniam drawing the attention of Apex Court towards
multiple malaises afflicting Indain civil service including irregular and
improper transfers of the bureaucrats. The PIL, inter alia, criticised the
extant system of transfers, postings, promotions, disciplinary action and other
personnel matters pertaining to the members of various still services in Indian
finding them ad hoc and opaque. The said PIL and many other recommendations of
the earlier Administrative Reforms Commissions [ARCs] have always espoused and
championed the need for some definitive measures bring about some system
reforms for ensuring functional autonomy for India’s premier civil service.
“Transfers are often used as instruments of rewards and
punishment, with officials being frequently transferred on the whims and
caprices as well as the personal needs of local politicians and other vested
interests. Officers, especially those in the All India Services, serving in
state governments, have no stability or security of tenure,” the PIL said. The
PIL had also advocated that the civil servants at all levels be given a minimum
three-year fixed tenure in each post to encourage operational freedom within
the precincts of rules and laws. It proposed that any premature transfer should
be specifically authorized by a ‘Civil Service Board/commission’ in special
situations to be specified in writing.
It was felt that guaranteeing a ‘minimum assured tenure’ in
postings would effectively deter the political class from using transfers as a
threatening weapon against the babus [read bureaucrats]. Attributing the
deterioration in bureaucratic functioning to political interference, the Apex
Court hoped that “fixing tenure of bureaucrats will promote professionalism,
efficiency and good governance”.
It is against this background that a Notification was issued
by the Department of Personal and Training [DOPT] on the 30th of January, 2014
in compliance of the October 2013 judgement of the Supreme Court. As per this
Notification, cadre officers of All India Serivces [AIS] will now generally
hold their posts for, at least, two years unless promoted, retired or sent on
deputation outside the state or on training beyond two months. The said
Notification shall hopefully come as a relief for the civil servants in, at
least, those states where transfers are quite frequent.
The relevant rules framed in this regard say that “the
Centre or the state government may transfer a cadre officer before the minimum
specified period on the recommendation of the Civil Services Board”. However,
the Competent Authority may reject the CSB recommendation but will, in that
case, have to record its reasons therefor. In the matter of transfers, the
state CSB is to consider the reports of the administrative department along
with any other inputs and is also supposed to obtain the views of the officer
proposed to be transferred.
The notified rules require the state CSB to submit a
quarterly report in such form as it deems fit to the Central government,
clearly stating the details of officers recommended for transfer before the
minimum specified tenure while also recording the reasons for the same. The CSB
in each state is to be headed by the Chief Secretary and would, inter alia,
include senior most Additional Chief Secretary or Chairman, Board of Revenue or
Finance Commissioner or an officer of equivalent rank and Principle/Secretary of the Personnel
Department while considering the transfers of the IAS officers. For transfers of
the IPS officers, the CSB shall comprise members of IAS Board plus Home
Secretary and DGP; and for recommending the transfers of the IFS [Indian Forest
Service] officers, the CSB is to include members of IAS Board plus Forest
Secretary and Principal Chief Conservator of Forest [PCCF].
In pursuance to the DOPT Notification, many state
governments have already constituted their CSBs, while many are still to follow
suit. All said and done, critics argue that many civil servants would baulk at
complaining against a premature transfer because of the potential victimization
in future. Again, it is not very clear as to what would happen if the terms of
the said DOPT Notification is not complied with or violated. The concept of the
‘competent authority’ with power to reject the CSB recommendation itself is not
clearly delineated.
Besides, it is felt that the Central interference in such
internal state matters might be few and far between. The castigation of a state
government for violating the guidelines laid down in the said Notification may
very well hinge upon the mutual understanding between the two tiers of
governments.
Notwithstanding negativity of doubting Thomases, a positive
beginning has definitely been made. Only hopes that with a conscientised civil
society and a vibrant Fourth Estate, the
governance in India shall become more organised, orderly, transparent and
effective as and when such initiatives get slowly imbibed by our system.
COMMENTS