Blog

Terrorism has found its niche in the political scene worldwide. It has of late found its improvised manifestations in administration too. It all started in the recent times as a desperate autocratic response to long standing systemic evils in electoral process by T.N. Seshan by whimsically punishing civil servants with deterrent humiliation. The virus is gradually spreading to affect the rationality of many a decision-making powers that be, invariably playing to the gallery and emerging larger than life from the ashes of the same civil service which saw them crawling their way to the distinct heights of constitutional offices. The safely couched and largely unaccountable political executive has also taken a cue and proceeded to whip the civil servants with a new found moral legitimacy.

The original concept of terrorism was “propaganda of the deed” as a means to secure attention and advantage to an ideological cause. The neo-terrorism in administration is also primarily a psychological warfare. It aims to select a target and make mince meat of him to keep the entire flock constantly reminded of the butcher’s knife with fear and anxiety.

Intra-fraternal disagreements plague the organizational response of the civil services to such terrorism. Most of us still live in the make belief world of being the real government’ ourselves, and thus see no point in the ‘real government’ taking up anything about its worthwhile concerns with the ‘so called’ government. Others, having choice postings or angling for betterment, are against any formal response to the challenges we face and prefer sugar coated informal exchanges of sweet nothings instead. There are others who feel that any formal response of our Association will give a handle to the press to criticize the bureaucracy, as if the press is short of true facts or wild paint any of us black, with many of us well known to gossip overtime and plant juicy news reports. Then there are the pious elders who occasionally grace the retirement parties as loud mourners of the present plight of the service without an explanation of their own contribution to the process. There are others who in their enlightened public posture, consider the bureaucracy a drag and emerge ‘holier than thou’ in the media. The clipped wings of the worldly wise seniors offer little shelter or inspiration to the young. The young ones thus throw up a justification of negotiating their own way to glory.

We have been tempted with a carrot and goaded with stick in the past. Now, when the carrots are not enough, the stick has become an iron rod for inflicting grievous injuries to the mind and public reputation of a targeted few to tame the entire service to subjugation. Thus come the suspensions, motivated hounding through investigating agencies, forced deputation to Centre or its pre-mature abortion, repeated transfers, compulsory leave, waiting for posting etc.

Absence of a transparent transfer policy has made most of us display Pavlovian responses. We salivate at the slightest sign of another round of transfers. Half of us make the other half hibernate. So is the bait of extensions in service after normal age of retirement. The race for a post retirement fixed term statutory or corporate slot also demands self demeaning compromises, though we pretend that it has been accepted with grudging reluctance. Unfortunately this invariably happens to our role models at the highest levels of bureaucracy with greatest consequential damage to the service.

A dog senses the sense of fear in the eyes of a man before pouncing upon its victim. So do those who tame us to intellectual subservience. We make no secret of our inherent fear of any controversy. It’s true that official controversy takes an officer to a slippery wicket and inspires the gossip mongers to work overtime assassinating his character, not knowing perhaps the next turn could be theirs. The a la paparazzi press gets an opportunity to bake the spicy layers of fact and fiction. The “babu”, the “babudom” and so on, overflowing with contempt for the service which they all once his beloved in frustration.

We also fear to open our mouth against the gravest of wrongs under the fear of Rule 7 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. It needs debate as to whether in an age of transparency and right to information, this rule should be allowed to gag the civil service to a stony silence. The restriction is on any radio broadcast, or any document published anonymously, pseudonymously or in the officer’s own name, or in the name of any other person or in any communication to the press or in any public utterance, make any statement of fact or opinion amounting to adverse criticism of the recent policy or action of the government. Isn’t it intriguing that even making a statement of true fact is a misconduct for a civil servant ? At least vis a vis the recent and current government policies and actions it is. But there is no barrier to make a statement of facts to defend against motivated raving and ranting directed against an individual officer or the civil service collectively. The society is being increasingly fed to believe that the dumb civil service is the root cause of all evils in this country. Can we make a loud and clear statement of fact that it is not so at all ?

The menace of telephonic ‘oral orders’ is the new chemical missile unleashed on the modern day civil servants. Files are meant only to record what is bye and large legal, and what would please the powers that be. Any officer who is meticulous on files and has respect for the laws and rules is dubbed a ‘negative mind’ by the political executive. “Laws and rules are hurdles that bureaucracy creates”, thunders the political executive which legislates them but finds them a fetter against arbitrary and discriminatory abuse of power. Thus the concept of oral orders to escape accountability. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Government of India Office Memo No 11013/12/78- Estt (A), dated 1st of August 1978 states that the practice adopted by the senior officials and the personal staff of the Ministers (perhaps at that time Ministers did not) in conveying oral instructions to their subordinates makes it necessary to define the role of oral instruction in transaction of business and definite guidelines need to be set down. Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct Rules) 1964 had already envisaged the implications of oral orders while laying down that no otherwise than in his best judgement except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior and shall, in such an eventuality, obtain the direction in writing wherever practicable, and where it is not practicable to obtain the direction in writing, he shall obtain the written confirmation of the direction as soon thereafter as possible. Clarificatory instructions were issued vide DOPT GOI OM No 11013/18/76 Estt (A) dated 7th of February 1977 to the effect that it is the duty of the superior official giving the direction to confirm it in writing when such confirmation is sought by the subordinates. It is not open to him to refuse to confirm given by him orally, just as it is open to him to state immediately that no such direction was given. It was further laid down that if a junior officer receives oral instructions from the orders are not in accordance with the norms, rules, regulations or procedures, they should seek further clear orders from the Secretary or the Head of the Department about the line of action to be taken, stating clearly that the oral instructions are not in accordance with the rules, regulations, norms or procedures. This leaves nothing to chance. Oral orders must be got confirmed immediately, and except in emergent situations, before complying with them. Oral orders can be given only by the prescribed hierarchical superiors in transaction of departmental business. A person may be very highly placed in order of precedence as per the Blue Book, but he may not be an official superior in a strict official interpretation of the term, much less the extra-constitutional power centers and power brokers swarming the corridors of authority.

*Article authored by Sarvesh Kaushal, IAS (1982 Batch) as General Secretary of Punjab IAS Officers’ Association and published in the Association Newsletter “The Occasional File“ in the year 2003.