The idea of 'Minimum Government,
Maximum Governance' has been in circulation for a while, especially in
the wake of the BJP government's pledge to ensure that the concept
attains fruition across the country. Any attempt to improve is
incomplete without a matching effort to streamline the permanent
executive, pre-eminently the civil services. But India's proverbial
steel frame has allegedly become rusted and rickety, and this is largely
because of its failure to adjust to the changing praxis of development.
Even if policy changes are made with corresponding initiatives, all of them would not be effective if the implementing agencies are not adequately and suitably equipped to respond to the challenges. As the quality of governance depends on the quality of its executive arm, it is here that the bureaucracy is alleged to have performed short of expectations. Governments at the Centre and in the states have attempted periodic administrative reforms. As part of such initiatives to enhance the standard of public service, weeding out of the inefficient or venal bureaucrats has been high on the agenda. Guidelines are reported to have been issued by the Centre to the Ministries and departments to "compulsorily retire people who don't meet required standards of work or probity".
Compulsory retirement, when legally challenged, has in principle been approved by the Supreme Court. In a 1980 judgment, it ruled that compulsory retirement "is undoubtedly in public interest and is not passed by way of punishment". This was later reinforced by a cognate judgment supporting the idea of dropping an official in public interest.
Therefore, at least on paper, the bureaucracy does not have a secure job. The previous government at the Centre even amended the All India Service Rules to provide for compulsory retirement of below-par bureaucrats just after 15 years of service in keeping with the Sixth Pay Commission's recommendation. However, one has not known of any compulsory retirement. Many observers do find compulsory retirement to be a desirable tool in ensuring the efficacy and efficiency of the civil service. In any system of governance, performance is often determined by the set of incentives provided to the people who exercise power. However, many feel that in a developing country like India, where bureaucrats wield enormous power, a guaranteed job provides the wrong incentive.
The concept of 'compulsory retirement' for the inefficient and invalid officers is laudable in itself. The devil lies in the detail. How is one going to ensure the exit of the truly inefficient and ineffective officials? How shall they be identified? Would the assessment system be the basis of identifying the officers to be retired? The present performance appraisal system, known as 'Annual Confidential Report (ACR)', is a subjective assessment and is definitely not fool-proof. Such a system can target and victimize officers, for instance Sanjeev Chaturvedi and Ashok Khemka, who don't kowtow to the powers that be.
Before shortlisting officers for 'compulsory retirement', the government must ensure the objective assessment of a particular officer by an independent panel whose neutrality is unquestionable. Of course, if it is an entity handpicked by the ruling dispensation, its members will very probably just sign on the dotted line. Hence, a mechanism needs to be evolved to ensure that we don't lose our best officers to the byzantine politicking in the portals of power. Co-opting a leader of the Opposition and a Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court in the panel may be a good idea to pre-empt the victimisation of efficient officers.
Again, circumstances and conditions of working also need to be factored in before taking a call on compulsory retirement. Many officers have complained that they are often expected to run towards an impossible target with their hands and feet tied. So even while you expect an officer to deliver, he may be deterred by undesirable interference or by an inefficient team which does not allow him to function effectively.
While the proposal relates to the All India Services - IAS, IPS and IFS - it ought to be applicable to all categories of officers and staff in order to ensure collective accountability. Their performance, in good measure, is dependent on the performance of other officials and staff from various services. They definitely provide the leadership in their respective domains, but targeting merely the AIS officers will not benefit the system overall.
If India is marching forward, the positive role of the bureaucracy cannot be denied, demeaned or disputed. There should be incentives for performers. Otherwise, the government runs the risk of losing them to the private sector. Treating the hare and the tortoise on the same footing does not make sense. So, a well-structured system of incentives is warranted to sustain the efficiency of the civil services.
The government should not limit its action-plan to compulsory retirement. It should also act on proposals as mooted by the last three Pay Commissions to peg a bureaucrat's salary to performance. Unless there is a system of differentiated pay linked to performance, the work culture will not improve. The Sixth Pay Commission had suggested an independent external agency to evaluate the performance of bureaucrats with the aim of linking overall payment to their performance.
Conversely, one of the Pay Commissions had also recommended that under-performers be denied normal increment. Both suggestions must be thoroughly discussed in the interest of putting in place an efficient and delivery-oriented superior and subordinate civil service. Twenty-first century India certainly deserves more than the mere continuation of a colonial-style bureaucracy.
From the perspective of fiscal policy, such issues as the government's pay-structure and work environment warrant reform. A huge chunk of the annual budget is earmarked for salaries and pensions of a behemoth bureaucracy. Only the residual amount is used for development. Making them accountable and getting more out of civil servants is an essential element of the proposed administrative reform. The system of incentivising the entire governance and delivery mechanism also calls for reflection.
The government must act on the tasks it has set out if it wants to execute its development agenda. However, a well-thought out human resource policy in keeping with the developmental priorities of an aspiring India is urgently imperative. Unless this happens, there will be instances of abuse of power or indifference towards responsibilities. Given the support for the idea, the Government definitely needs to go ahead to effect the proposal on the anvil.
Even if policy changes are made with corresponding initiatives, all of them would not be effective if the implementing agencies are not adequately and suitably equipped to respond to the challenges. As the quality of governance depends on the quality of its executive arm, it is here that the bureaucracy is alleged to have performed short of expectations. Governments at the Centre and in the states have attempted periodic administrative reforms. As part of such initiatives to enhance the standard of public service, weeding out of the inefficient or venal bureaucrats has been high on the agenda. Guidelines are reported to have been issued by the Centre to the Ministries and departments to "compulsorily retire people who don't meet required standards of work or probity".
Compulsory retirement, when legally challenged, has in principle been approved by the Supreme Court. In a 1980 judgment, it ruled that compulsory retirement "is undoubtedly in public interest and is not passed by way of punishment". This was later reinforced by a cognate judgment supporting the idea of dropping an official in public interest.
Therefore, at least on paper, the bureaucracy does not have a secure job. The previous government at the Centre even amended the All India Service Rules to provide for compulsory retirement of below-par bureaucrats just after 15 years of service in keeping with the Sixth Pay Commission's recommendation. However, one has not known of any compulsory retirement. Many observers do find compulsory retirement to be a desirable tool in ensuring the efficacy and efficiency of the civil service. In any system of governance, performance is often determined by the set of incentives provided to the people who exercise power. However, many feel that in a developing country like India, where bureaucrats wield enormous power, a guaranteed job provides the wrong incentive.
The concept of 'compulsory retirement' for the inefficient and invalid officers is laudable in itself. The devil lies in the detail. How is one going to ensure the exit of the truly inefficient and ineffective officials? How shall they be identified? Would the assessment system be the basis of identifying the officers to be retired? The present performance appraisal system, known as 'Annual Confidential Report (ACR)', is a subjective assessment and is definitely not fool-proof. Such a system can target and victimize officers, for instance Sanjeev Chaturvedi and Ashok Khemka, who don't kowtow to the powers that be.
Before shortlisting officers for 'compulsory retirement', the government must ensure the objective assessment of a particular officer by an independent panel whose neutrality is unquestionable. Of course, if it is an entity handpicked by the ruling dispensation, its members will very probably just sign on the dotted line. Hence, a mechanism needs to be evolved to ensure that we don't lose our best officers to the byzantine politicking in the portals of power. Co-opting a leader of the Opposition and a Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court in the panel may be a good idea to pre-empt the victimisation of efficient officers.
Again, circumstances and conditions of working also need to be factored in before taking a call on compulsory retirement. Many officers have complained that they are often expected to run towards an impossible target with their hands and feet tied. So even while you expect an officer to deliver, he may be deterred by undesirable interference or by an inefficient team which does not allow him to function effectively.
While the proposal relates to the All India Services - IAS, IPS and IFS - it ought to be applicable to all categories of officers and staff in order to ensure collective accountability. Their performance, in good measure, is dependent on the performance of other officials and staff from various services. They definitely provide the leadership in their respective domains, but targeting merely the AIS officers will not benefit the system overall.
If India is marching forward, the positive role of the bureaucracy cannot be denied, demeaned or disputed. There should be incentives for performers. Otherwise, the government runs the risk of losing them to the private sector. Treating the hare and the tortoise on the same footing does not make sense. So, a well-structured system of incentives is warranted to sustain the efficiency of the civil services.
The government should not limit its action-plan to compulsory retirement. It should also act on proposals as mooted by the last three Pay Commissions to peg a bureaucrat's salary to performance. Unless there is a system of differentiated pay linked to performance, the work culture will not improve. The Sixth Pay Commission had suggested an independent external agency to evaluate the performance of bureaucrats with the aim of linking overall payment to their performance.
Conversely, one of the Pay Commissions had also recommended that under-performers be denied normal increment. Both suggestions must be thoroughly discussed in the interest of putting in place an efficient and delivery-oriented superior and subordinate civil service. Twenty-first century India certainly deserves more than the mere continuation of a colonial-style bureaucracy.
From the perspective of fiscal policy, such issues as the government's pay-structure and work environment warrant reform. A huge chunk of the annual budget is earmarked for salaries and pensions of a behemoth bureaucracy. Only the residual amount is used for development. Making them accountable and getting more out of civil servants is an essential element of the proposed administrative reform. The system of incentivising the entire governance and delivery mechanism also calls for reflection.
The government must act on the tasks it has set out if it wants to execute its development agenda. However, a well-thought out human resource policy in keeping with the developmental priorities of an aspiring India is urgently imperative. Unless this happens, there will be instances of abuse of power or indifference towards responsibilities. Given the support for the idea, the Government definitely needs to go ahead to effect the proposal on the anvil.
No comments:
Post a Comment