TCA Srinivasa-Raghavan: After 123, Sir, how about 311?

LINE & LENGTH

How the PM can realise Rajiv Gandhi's dream of an efficient, responsive government.

Last week, I received an email from a government employee in which he put down only half my name. Given how long it is, I thought the poor man had stopped because of sheer exhaustion. But as I read on, I realised that this was just plain arrogance. It was something only an untrained government employee could have written.

Peeved, I wrote back asking him how he would like it if I addressed him as, say, "Dear Mr Gup". (The full version is not his real name, by the way.) He was not used to such lip. In his reply, he ranted a bit and then said "Please note that I am least bothered to such type of things."

Least bothered to such type of things. Yes. The combination of wrong English and officialese ("Please note that" etc) was ok, but what really got my goat was that "I am least bothered" bit. It was so typical of government employees. This arrogance permeates all levels.

The full list of such pieces of arrogant behaviour would be, well, almost as long as my name. But you know what I am talking about.

Nine times out of ten, those who work for the government are not "bothered to such type of things". No wonder poor Rajiv Gandhi told an interviewer in 1986 that he felt more powerless as prime minister than he had as a pilot. On an aircraft, he said, when you pressed a button or pulled a lever, something happened. In government you issued an order and never knew what became of it.

At the root of this "I am least bothered to such type of things" lies just one reason: Article 311 of the Constitution. Its intention was something different but in a typically Indian way, it has been perverted to mean that a government employee, once he has been confirmed, can never be sacked.

Article 311 is about the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of civil servants.

Clause 1 says: "No person who is a member of a civil service... shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed."

Clause 2 says civil servants cannot also be reduced in rank "except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges."

These clauses do not apply if there is bad conduct, national security or if it is "not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry."

Great, yes? Very fair, no?

Rubbish. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As we all know, the Indian Constitution is an almost verbatim reproduction of the Government of India Act of 1935. And that Act had drawn heavily on the Government of India Act of 1919. It was the result of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms of 1918.

The 1919 Act was designed to involve Indians in governing India , albeit at very low level. Provincial legislatures were elected and for the first time after the British conquered India, Indian "ministers" were permitted to hold office.

It was, if you will, the first effort at what is now called "capacity building". All very nice and liberal but there was a problem: How could white officials serve under coolies? Remember, this was at the height of Empire, just after Jallianwala Bagh etc. What if some native bounder decided to take disciplinary action against a white officer? The notion was utterly preposterous.

So in came what eventually became Clause 1 of 311""only the appointing authority was given the powers to reduce in rank or remove. And guess who the appointing authority was. The Governor or the Viceroy himself.

But what with Mohammad Ali Jinnah around, everything also needed to appear fair. So the provision for making an enquiry was made. On paper, everything now conformed to the needs of the doctrine of "natural justice". Balle, balle.

But then a problem arose. What if a brown official had to be dismissed? Would he have the same benefits? The answer was obviously no. The legal guise for this came in the third exception, which was typically British, namely, give it all a miss if it was "not practical to hold an enquiry".

This, by the way, was the main reason why we coolies, even when serving as civil servants, behaved ourselves under the British. We could lose our jobs.

But today no civil servant has that fear. He can do absolutely nothing for 35 years or be active only as a bribe taker or even worse, mess things up irretrievably. Nothing can happen to him.

So here is a fervent plea to the Prime Minister. Sir, you have swung the 123 thing. Now, if you want to do the right thing by us poor citizens, please amend 311.

Let me suggest the amendment: "Provided further that this clause shall not apply if the head of department receives more than three complaints against a member of the civil service in a period of 30 days." Only the rascals will complain.

At least, Sir, start a debate. Sir, please, sir.