Reforming the bureaucracy: Are we close to having a hire-and-fire policy?

While a mechanism to fire inefficient and corrupt bureaucrats exists, the one to hire lateral entrants is still not formed

On June 10, the Modi government - in the first month of its second tenure - forced 12 senior income tax officials to retire. The list included a joint commissioner who was facing serious corruption charges. The others in the list were also accused of corrupt practices, amassing wealth illegally and even extortion. This was followed by the ‘forced retirement’ of 15 more officials, this time of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, on 18 June. 

How these retirements were done

These retirements were not arbitrary but were done under Fundamental Rule 56(j) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 that govern Indian bureaucracy. The rule book states: 

The appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire  if it is necessary to do so in public interest, a Government servant under FR 56(j), FR 56(i) or Rule 48(1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as the case may be.

As per rules, the cases of government servants should be reviewed six months before they attain the age of 50/55 years or complete 30 years of service (or 30 years of qualifying service) whichever occurs earlier. Ministry/Department/Office level committees are then required to recommend whether these officers should be retained or retired in public interest.

Government employees can be retired for their integrity being under doubt or if they are found to be ineffective. Even the SC has upheld  the validity of this rule and held that the government did not even need to issue a show cause notice before issuing a notice of retirement under these provisions.

Were these ‘retirements’ or sackings - as they are being referred to - extraordinary? Business Standard spoke to retired IAS officer and Former Member, Planning Commission, N C Saxena, who pointed towards Clause 56(j) of Fundamental Rules and said that the clause had been used in the past too, albeit in isolated cases. The recent cases of retirements was the first time it was done on such a large scale, he said.

“Clause 56(j) is a useful tool to get rid of deadwood in the bureaucracy. It keeps the bureaucracy on its toes as well. This can be helpful in improving efficiency of government machinery while also being helpful in checking corruption,” he said.

“Moreover, we haven’t seen any complaints about these retirements. There have been no murmurs of any malafide intent either,” Saxena added.

Within weeks of this action by the Modi government, echoes of this action could be heard even in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. On Friday, July 5, Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal asked his cabinet colleagues in the Delhi government to prepare a list of corrupt officials who can be sent on premature retirement.

The Delhi govt issued a statement on July 7 that said, “This retirement of corrupt officials will be in line with the central government’s initiative of retiring such officers under Fundamental Rule 56(j) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.”

With Delhi talking about following this policy, other states may not remain far behind either. Could this become a pseudo firing policy for the government? We may find out in the near future.

Even as this system to fire inefficient or corrupt officials is evolving, another aspect of administrative reform seems to be taking shape.

Earlier this year the Modi government appointed nine private sector specialists as joint secretaries in various departments through lateral hiring.

In June, 2019, after Modi government’s return to power, it was reported in newspapers that Secretary (Personnel) had asked officials of DoPT to prepare a formal proposal for hiring 400 domain experts from the private sector at the Deputy Secretary and Director level positions in the government.

Questions were raised about this in the ongoing monsoon session of parliament earlier this month to which the govt replied that it had decided to appoint 40 private sector specialists in these important decision making positions in the government.

Saxena provides the context for such hiring. He explains that the need for lateral hiring has arisen due to two reasons. Between the early 1990s and 2005, the recruitment to the IAS cadre had come down to just 55. As the economic system was reformed as part of liberalisation in 1991, it was felt that a large bureaucracy was perhaps not needed. At the same time, over the next decade and a half, as the governments’ revenue went up, so did their expenditure on education, healthcare and other social welfare endeavours. 
 

"This expanded the role of the state which needed a bigger bureaucracy and domain expertise. These two things combined to create a shortfall in the numbers. Moreover states are unwilling to release IAS officers for central deputation. Lateral hiring can help fill this gap to some extent,” Saxena adds.

“Lateral hiring and more hiring in the IAS can help resolve this shortcoming. Even for the IAS, we need to have domain expertise so that the officers can have a better contribution to administration and policy making. We should encourage specialisation,” he adds.

The concern

Business Standard also spoke to retired IAS officer and former Secretary, Govt of Maharashtra, Sundar Burra. He expresses some concerns about lateral hiring.

“We have had lateral hiring in the past as well in some special cases. Dr Manmohan Singh for example. There were no protests then either. But it was also because people of proven merit had been hired,” he says.

“We still don’t have confirmed information about these recruitments but the question of bypassing UPSC remains. Will it be bypassed? No one has ever questioned the UPSC’s impartiality. What about the guarantees of impartiality, neutrality and objectivity in the bureaucracy? This might alter the very concept of civil service,” Burra says.

“Sardar Patel had wanted an impartial and unaligned bureaucracy. He had said that he wanted a bureaucracy in which a secretary could oppose the minister. Where a secretary could give free and frank advice. How will these concepts be altered in case of lateral hires?” he asks.

He also raises questions about provisions for reservations for underprivileged sections in the bureaucracy. “What about reservations for SC and ST at these levels of bureaucracy?”

When pointed out that SCs and STs have a very low representation in higher bureaucracy even now, he says, “Well, there are obligations at least? They are part of the constitutional guarantees, even if they are inadequately fulfilled. In case of lateral entry this project would be totally abandoned.”

“But these questions were not the main concern even in the past when lateral hires like Dr Manmohan Singh or Vijay Kelkar joined the government,” says Saxena.

Despite raising concerns about lateral hires, Burra agrees about the need for reforms in bureaucracy. “We do need reforms in many areas but in case, in theory the independence of the bureaucracy will be lost.”

There are fair questions about the process as well. If this is a well thought-out policy move then it would be fair to ask for any evidence of public consultation, as Burra asks. 

“There is nothing in the public domain as to why this is being done. There isn’t even a paper on why this is needed. There might be good reasons for lateral hiring but those need to be discussed, debated and then implemented.”

While there exists a mechanism to weed out inefficient and corrupt officials, the system for lateral entry to Indian bureaucracy is still evolving. Even as questions swirl around lateral entries, the government’s move has set the cat among the pigeons. The process to hire lateral entrants may become more institutionalised in the future and thereby answer some of these questions. We do seem to have the contours of a hiring and firing policy being formed. Keep watching this space as it evolves into something more concrete and streamlined. Twitter: @Bhayankur