working in government sector should improve............

i m complletly in favour that working should improve by improving the selection /recruitment in gov sector. gov. should make such a policy that selection should be on the basis of the human ability not on the basis of any castism system than can only working in gov will improve & our india will become a developed nation like other developed countries.

Dear Hima,

As you stated, that is the real demand of time. But, untill and unless Government discontinues recruitment of generalist bureucrats and start recruiting the qualified professionals that mission cannot be achieved. In fact the political system of our country is such that the politicians would never prefer recruitment of qualified professionals to get themselves let down on account of their ignorance.

Recruitment Rules of Government provide the minimum prescribed qualification even for a peon's job, but there is no prescribed qualification for a legislature. If you look in to the record of the elected members of Parliament or the state legislatures you will find several members as illiterate or semi-literate. Not only that even if some one is appointed on the lowest posts in the Government departments, they will not be allowed to join unless his or her character and antecedents are verified by police and the CBI, while on the other hand even hardened criminals find way to our legislatures as their character and antecedents are never required to be verified.

So, unless the institution of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is abolished and the Peoples Act for election of legislatures is modified to include at least the minimum required qualification of Graduation for the candidates, the production of beureucrats and illiterate legislatures will go on and they would continue to reign the country with their own whims and fancy. continue as such.

Although drastic changes are required in the Goverment sector, but where is the scope of bringing in any change with the old and obsolete English system of selection of bureucrats?

PART-1

Although the respected member has not stated the reason for the need of improvement in Government services, but, sure there is an urgent need of overhauling of the services on several grounds. Our constitution provides for equality, but, our Government is still towing the pre-independence lines of the English rulers of direct selection of a handful Officers through UPSC. Not only that they are provided 2 years of induction training at the hefty cost of the departments concerned in addition to their pay to prepare for the qualifying exam of the department (without any job being performed by them). On the other hand if any in-service departmental employee has to take any promotional exam to enhance the quality of services of the department he has to prepare for the exam at his own cost by taking consuming his own leave, while the direct recruit probationers get their leave accumulated intact. Not only that the exam papers set for them are damn easy that a 10+2 student can qualify, while an in-service employee has to face a very tough exam standards. I have several examples on this aspect. For example in seventies a Dy. Director General asked me to moderate to the maximum extent the final exam paper of the direct recruits with the reason that they have to be passed somehow or the other. On another occasion at least three paper checkers, including the Director in-charge of the institute asked me about the minimum qualifying marks clearly stating that the failing probationers had to be passed, as they were not able to secure qualifying marks in the examination. If such people are posted over the head of the experienced people it becomes quite difficult for the experienced personnel to work diligently and efficiently.

Further, their training is mostly aimed to rule like the Pre-independent style of the English rulers, as they are briefed in such a way that they should not adhere to the departmental promotes whatsoever useful working they render. At one occasion it happened right before my eyes when a group of probationers was advised by a lady Director of a Department, as “DO NOT TRUST PROMOTEE EMPLOYEES AT ANY COST.” Naturally, if they are trained in such a way, anybody can think what has been the benefit of this independence, which we secured 63 years ago. The irony of fate is that the said corrupt Director was later found involved in a bid fraud and had to be dismissed by the Department.

(CONTINUES in Part-2)

Part-2 (Continued from previous part)

Most of us have read the news of scandals, frauds, kickbacks, sexual abuse by very senior Officers. It is only due to the defective administrative machinery in the Government Organizations. Most of us may also be remembering the saying, “Bird of a feather flocks together.” This applies well to these direct recruits, as if someone out of them is found involved, they are tried tooth and nail till they can to save them by making permutations and combinations and diverting the blame on some promote junior. This happened in 1990 when a Class-I Engineer was served with a major penalty charge sheet exactly a day before his retirement for the wrong practices of his super boss and that too through four another bosses working under that super boss. The irony of fate was that in spite of the provision that no vigilance related record is shown to any person during investigation that particular super boss was called at the headquarters officially to see the record and allowed to manipulate whatever he could do. The case related to about the year 1982 or 1983, but until and unless that super boss even after allowing him promotion had not retired, the Charge Sheet was not served to the said Engineer, so that he may not involve the real culprit during his defense in regular inquiry. The poor fellow had to toil for justice for more than 5 years of his retirement and to get his retirement benefits that too without interest.

So, if we see, mostly the corrupt people develop in the Government organization. An honest person is made to pay for the faults of the corrupt persons. They are booked for the faults of the corrupt officers. Their promotions are held up and retirement benefits are held in abeyance for years together. Not only that, in spite of the provision that Provident Fund amount cannot be withheld, even that has been noticed to have withheld after the retirement of the employee till the decision of the disciplinary case. As an experienced inquiry Officer and defense counsel in several Departmental inquiry cases for the last about 30 years, I have noticed that majority of disciplinary cases against the employees are often framed on false and fictitious grounds, like the above instance.

(Continues in Part-3)

Part-3 (Continues from Part-2)

In the cases of Gazetted employees, there is a provision for having first stage opinion and second stage opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) before start of the case and after inquiry of the case by an inquiry officer, respectively. To the misfortune of the employees, the CVC has been found mostly as a catalyst rather than an analyst of the cases. If someone is not towing the line of corrupt or inefficient bosses, they are tried to be implicated by hook or by crook. The Vigilance Officer under that boss normally gets the hint of the high up and starts processing the cases against the employee accordingly. The administration prefers to take stamp of the CVC before start of the case and are quite successful to get their desired nod of the CVC, which normally endorses the views of the administration without verifying the facts, like what are the prescribed duties and responsibilities of the officers in the hierarchy and how the officer is involved and why. In the CVC most of the cases are taken in negative sense only, as if the employee is the real culprit. The law of the land (in books) is that let 100 persons are let off, an innocent should not get penalized. But, here the rule is adversely applied, a booked innocent should not be let off, let the 100 culprits culprit get scot free. So, it is a matter to be pondered upon if a case goes to CVC, if not more, about 98% get of the charge sheeted employees get penalty irrespective of whether they have committed any misconduct or not. On receipt of the clearance from the CVC, some henchman of the boss is appointed as inquiring authority. Although I have experienced a lot about the inquiry officers, if anyone conducts a sincere survey, he will find the opinion of most of the inquiry officers, saying, “if the charge sheet has been served the employee must have committed some misconduct. If an inquiry officer starts an inquiry with such a view in mind he can never make an impartial inquiry. Irrespective of whether the charge is disproved, he would try to justify that the charge is proved or at least would say the charge is partly proved. In the disciplinary provisions the charge should either be proved or not proved. There is no such provision that charge should be partially proved. The charge should be proved beyond any doubt or be treated as not proved. But, the inquiry officer would always try to justify his action to say that the charge is partly proved.

(CONTINUES in Part-4)

Part-4 (Continues from Part-3)

There is no end to such wrong practices. We expect at least the cases entrusted to the Commissioners of Departmental Inquiry (CDI) of the CVC, itself, to be inquired impartially. But, in the most recent case I found that in one case the CDI, in spite of having not proved the case, tried to prove the charge against a Manager of a PSU without giving him an opportunity to defend his cause on an extraneous matter that had neither been a part of the charge nor discussed during inquiry to prove that by the Presenting Officer. On second opinion of the CVC the same was also approved by the CVC without having gone in to the fact that the contents the writer of a sentence of a correspondence to avoid supply of an additional document was never called to testify and prove his contention and having not given any opportunity to the Charged Officer to scuttle down that false evidence, while the Charged Officer had a very clear proof with him against that false version of the writer of that letter. The CVC never will review its recommendation on the representation of the C.O. against the report of the CDI of the CVC. What a fun of the second stage advice? Just an eyewash formality by the highest vigilance office.

There is a great lacuna in the CVC procedure. Irrespective of whether the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer was faulty, partial or biased, the opinion of the CVC is sought without having any comments of the charged officer. The administration is already set to go against the employee, it recommends to the CVC to approve imposing of a penalty. And the CVC is ever ready to accept the recommendation of the Disciplinary Authority and just puts the stamp of its consent to make the punishment fully secure. The irony of fate is that after receipt of recommendation of the CVC the Disciplinary Authority sends a copy of the Inquiry Report to the employee for his comments. May the employee prove beyond any doubt that the inquiry officer was wrong and the CVC recommendation was also wrong, there is no provision to get the recommendation of the CVC reviewed by the CVC and the employee is punished without any fault. THUS, IN MOST OF THE CASES, SINSERE AND DEDICATED EMPLOYEES ARE LABLED AS CCORRUPT AND INEFFICIENT IN GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS. Needless to mention, the opportunist employees become dare devil when they see the involvement of their bosses in corruption and high-handedness.

So, the question arises, who will bell the cat?

These are only a few instances where not only the honest and sincere employees are fearful in providing real services to the public, rather the public has to suffer monetarily and mentally being at the mercy of the corrupt and insincere employees.

So, needless to emphasize, there is a dire need for mass scale improvement in Government services.

The working conditions in the government should defenitly be improved. Every one knows that it is the most secured job. But the mentality of the people working the govt offices must be changed. For our work to be done in a govt office we need to bribe the employees, its a place of corruption and bribery. 

working in government sector should improve............