The Supreme Court had given a landmark judgment in 2006 to reform and restructure the police. In a follow up judgment, the Apex Court gave another landmark judgment on October 29 that the civil servants should have security of tenure and that they should not act on oral orders of the superiors. The Court recognized that, in the present political scenario, the role of civil servants has become very complex and onerous and that quite often they have to take decisions which have far reaching consequences in the economic and technological fields. Their decisions, therefore, must be transparent and must be in public interest and they should be fully accountable to the community they serve.
The Court, therefore, directed that a Civil Service Board consisting of high ranking in service officers, who are experts in their respective fields, with the Cabinet Secretary at the Centre and Chief Secretary at the State level be constituted to guide and advise the State Government on all service matters, especially on transfers, postings and disciplinary action, etc. These Boards should be constituted within a period of three months, if not already constituted. The Court, however, clarified that the views of the Board could be overruled, by the political executive, but by recording reasons. This, the judiciary felt, would ensure good governance, transparency and accountability in government functioning.
These directions will hold good till such time as the parliament, under Article 309 of the Constitution, enacts a Civil Service Act setting up a CSB to guide and advise the political executive. The Court, in this context, deplored that the civil servants are not having stability of tenure and that transfers and postings are being made for political and other considerations and not in public interest. Taking cognizance of the fact that 13 States had accepted the necessity of minimum tenure for civil servants, the Court directed the Union, the state governments and the Union Territories to issue appropriate directions to provide of minimum tenure of service to various civil servants. An assured tenure, the Court observed, would not only enable the civil servants to achieve their professional targets, but also help them to function as effective instruments of public policy.
Government of India , in compliance of Supreme Court’s directions, issued two notifications on January 28 – Indian Administrative Services (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014 and Indian Police Service (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014. I have seen both the notifications and am constrained to remark that the IPS (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014 are mischievous. The Civil Services Board which would decide the postings/transfers of cadre officers would comprise the following officers: 1. Chief Secretary (Chairman) 2. Seniormost Additional Chief Secretary or Chairman, Board of Revenue or Financial Commissioner or an officer of equivalent rank and status 3. Principal Secretary or Secretary, Department of Personnel in the State Department 4. Principal Secretary or Secretary, Home 5. Director General of Police The Civil Services Board for the IAS officers would have only the officers mentioned at 1, 2 & 3 above.
The Amendment Rules are contrary to the directions given by the Supreme Court in 2006 about setting up of Police Establishment Board comprising the Director General of Police and four other senior officers of the Department. The Amendment Rules are a clever attempt to subvert the judicial directions and re-establish the hegemony of the Indian Administrative Service over the IPS. These will have to be challenged. I will be doing that at the next hearing. Meanwhile, it is for consideration if CIPSA or ARSIPSO or any other body would also like to get involved.
(Prakash Singh IPS Rtd. Ex DGP)
The Court, therefore, directed that a Civil Service Board consisting of high ranking in service officers, who are experts in their respective fields, with the Cabinet Secretary at the Centre and Chief Secretary at the State level be constituted to guide and advise the State Government on all service matters, especially on transfers, postings and disciplinary action, etc. These Boards should be constituted within a period of three months, if not already constituted. The Court, however, clarified that the views of the Board could be overruled, by the political executive, but by recording reasons. This, the judiciary felt, would ensure good governance, transparency and accountability in government functioning.
These directions will hold good till such time as the parliament, under Article 309 of the Constitution, enacts a Civil Service Act setting up a CSB to guide and advise the political executive. The Court, in this context, deplored that the civil servants are not having stability of tenure and that transfers and postings are being made for political and other considerations and not in public interest. Taking cognizance of the fact that 13 States had accepted the necessity of minimum tenure for civil servants, the Court directed the Union, the state governments and the Union Territories to issue appropriate directions to provide of minimum tenure of service to various civil servants. An assured tenure, the Court observed, would not only enable the civil servants to achieve their professional targets, but also help them to function as effective instruments of public policy.
Government of India , in compliance of Supreme Court’s directions, issued two notifications on January 28 – Indian Administrative Services (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014 and Indian Police Service (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014. I have seen both the notifications and am constrained to remark that the IPS (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014 are mischievous. The Civil Services Board which would decide the postings/transfers of cadre officers would comprise the following officers: 1. Chief Secretary (Chairman) 2. Seniormost Additional Chief Secretary or Chairman, Board of Revenue or Financial Commissioner or an officer of equivalent rank and status 3. Principal Secretary or Secretary, Department of Personnel in the State Department 4. Principal Secretary or Secretary, Home 5. Director General of Police The Civil Services Board for the IAS officers would have only the officers mentioned at 1, 2 & 3 above.
The Amendment Rules are contrary to the directions given by the Supreme Court in 2006 about setting up of Police Establishment Board comprising the Director General of Police and four other senior officers of the Department. The Amendment Rules are a clever attempt to subvert the judicial directions and re-establish the hegemony of the Indian Administrative Service over the IPS. These will have to be challenged. I will be doing that at the next hearing. Meanwhile, it is for consideration if CIPSA or ARSIPSO or any other body would also like to get involved.
(Prakash Singh IPS Rtd. Ex DGP)
With due regards to Mr. Prakash Singh, I have to say that his efforts to bring about a change through court have proved to be counter-productive.The new Police Acts passed by many states have established more rigid control of the bureaucracy and politician over the police.The states have now realised that police is a state subject and they can enact law and frame rules to regulate it.The Police Act of 1861 was a central legislation and was generally not touched by states.The Services Board is a mere eyewash and all such steps are only cosmetic in nature. We need building up conviction among the officers that they are accountable to people and their own conscience.This will remove all pressures.
ReplyDelete