Events of the past
days show the suspension of Durga Shakti Nagpal, an Indian Administrative
Service (IAS) officer serving in Uttar Pradesh, was politically motivated. The
order of the state government has now snowballed into a national political
controversy.
The officer, who was
suspended last week, had reportedly cracked down on the “sand mafia” operating
in the Gautam Budh Nagar district of Uttar Pradesh where she was serving as a
sub-divisional magistrate. Over the course of the past months, she had seized a
number of trucks and other vehicles laden with sand that had been mined
illegally in this district. There is high demand for sand in the district,
which is home to Noida, a sub-city adjoining the national capital. The step had
hit hard the interests of local politicians who have interests in the sand
mining business. The officer’s actions reverberated all the way to Lucknow. An
immature chief minister Akhilesh Yadavsuspended her, allegedly within an hour
of a local leader displaying displeasure at Nagpal. This was last week.
Since then, the
country has been subjected to the spectacle of a political football match
between the ruling Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Congress. SP leaders have
justified the chief minister’s actions by dishing out the most unbelievable
arguments. The Congress party, in turn, has demanded the officer not be
victimized. No less than party chief Sonia Gandhihas written to Prime Minister
Manmohan Singhto ensure justice for Nagpal. On Monday, SP boss Mulayam Singh
Yadavtermed the suspension order as “final, correct and irrevocable”.
Yadav can, of course,
be excused for his language. He probably is not aware that any officer, leave
alone members of the All India Services (AIS)—the IAS, the Indian Police
Service and the Indian Forest Service—cannot be held guilty before an inquiry
probing the charges against them is completed. In Nagpal’s case, the charge was
that she presided over the demolition of the wall of an under-construction
mosque in Kadalpur village in the district. This, the government felt, had the
potential to disturb communal amity in the district. A preliminary inquiry by
the district magistrate, the senior-most officer in the district, found no
substance in the charges levelled against her. Apparently, the government
relied on the report of a local intelligence unit of the state police to press
with the suspension. Reports suggest that this report did not even mention that
Nagpal was present at the site. This “oversight” in the report, it has been
claimed, was a “typographical error”.
Clearly, a state
government that cannot even carry out a suspension properly will not be fair to
the officer in question.
What is to be done?
At the very minimum,
the Union government needs to amend the relevant sections of the All India
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 under which officers of AIS are
disciplined. In the virtually anarchic administrative conditions that prevail
in the states today, few, if any, officers of these services can hope to
survive, let alone function with honesty, in states ruled by regional parties.
This is not because these parties are led by dishonest politicians but because
of their extremely short-sighted policy vision. The problem, while acute under
regional parties, is not limited to them. Cases such as those of Ashok Khemka
(in Haryana) show that even national parties are not immune from abusing
authority. Under such governments, officers are usually under extreme pressure.
Either ministers want them to adhere to orders of dubious legal validity or
simply get out of the way.
Officers such as
Nagpal are either seen as a threat or are simply squashed by administrative
fiat. The usual way to bend honest officers to the will of the ruling party is
to transfer them to inconvenient (or more often, inconsequential) positions.
Such officers are never deterred by this kind of punishment. A far more potent
option is to suspend officers who don’t obey you. This can deter even hardy
officers: After all a suspension can have far-reaching consequences ranging
from disruption of family life to the virtual destruction of a career. This, in
any case, is a Uttar Pradesh invention. In her tenure, former chief minister
Mayawatiset a record of sorts in suspending and transferring officers by the
hundreds. Yadav Jr is only following the footsteps of his predecessor. In
either case, this is bad news for sound administration in the country.
AIS officers are
suspended under Section 3 of the rules mentioned above. This section is clear
that in case of differences with a state government in such matters, the will
of the Union government shall prevail. But the section is worded weakly. To
tackle cases like Nagpal’s—which are no longer unusual—a separate section is
required that permits the Union government to take corrective action quickly.
To be sure, there are ample safeguards for civil servants. As it appears,
ultimately, Nagpal will get justice. But who knows when and at what stage? If,
for example, she has to fight out her suspension all the way to the Central
Administrative Tribunal, she will get demoralized badly. The essence of
victimizing an officer today is not the act of suspension itself but that of
keeping the officer on ice, so to speak, until her will is broken. Ask any
member of these services serving in far-flung corners of India and they will
tell you that this, and not AIS rules, are the way by which officers are
“disciplined”. The Union government needs to end this pernicious practice.
(The Wall Street
Journal – live mint dt 06/08/13)
No comments:
Post a Comment