Babus need to declare clear service records particularly with respect to integrity and dealings with non-government organisations before taking up commercial employment post their retirement, as per new rules formed by the government.
Besides, they need to mention that the proposed emoluments and pecuniary benefits being offered to them are in conformity with the industry standards.
The new rules, which are applicable to officers of Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS), among others, also cut the period to one year from two years for seeking prior permission from the government for taking up any commercial job.
The move assumes significance as government has been taking action against thousands of NGOs for violating norms. Few among them have been charged for carrying out activities which allegedly hampered country's economic growth.
"The organisation in which I am seeking employment is not involved in activities which are in conflict with or prejudicial to India's foreign relations, national security and domestic harmony. The organisation is not undertaking any activity for intelligence gathering.
"The employment, which I propose to take up also will not entail activities which are in conflict with or involve activities prejudicial to India's foreign relations, national security and domestic harmony," the officers need to declare in a revised application.
Pensioners need to affirm that they have not been privy to sensitive or strategic information in the last three years of service, which is directly related to the areas of interest or work of the organisation that they propose to join or to the areas in which they propose to practise or consult.
"My service record is clear, particularly with respect to integrity and dealings with non-government organisations (NGOs). The proposed emoluments and pecuniary benefits are in conformity with the industry standards," reads the declaration to be done by an applicant mandatorily, while seeking the nod.
The application form carrying new declaration has been recently revised by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
If there is a prima facie case against an IAS officer,
the state government should prepare a detailed report and consider obtaining version of the concerned officer.
Such report alongwith all relevant records and evidence should be forwarded to DoPT (which is the cadre controlling authority for such officers) with the approval of the competent authority there, the proposed guidelines said.
In case the concerned state government after examination of relevant records and other evidence is of the view that prima facie no case is made out of any alleged misconduct which may constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it shall inform the person who has made the request for sanction for prosecution about it, the DOPT said.
In case a prima facie case is made out, the same will be treated as a proposal as per existing procedures to initiate action for processing the matter for decision of the competent authority, it said.
All state governments and central government ministries have been asked to provide their comments on the proposed guidelines by August 12.
"A period of three months period for disposing of such proposals would commence from the date of receipt of complete proposal with all relevant material and the aforesaid report from the concerned state governments," the DoPT said.
A total of 4,926 IAS officers are working across the country as against its total sanctioned strength of 6,396.
The apex court had in its judgement given in 2012 observed that "if the competent authority is satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant, then it is required to grant sanction.
"If the satisfaction of the competent authority is otherwise, then it can refuse sanction. In either case, the decision taken on the complaint made by a citizen is required to be communicated to him and if he feels aggrieved by such decision, then he can avail appropriate legal remedy".
It was also observed by the Supreme Court that "At the same time, we deem it proper to observe that in future every competent authority shall take appropriate action on the representation made by a citizen for sanction of the prosecution of a public servant, so as to identify and obviate the areas causing delays in processing of such proposals ...".
