Disquiet over extensions to top officials

The bureaucracy in the national capital is passing through an anxious phase after Modi government tinkered with the promotion rules for top officers. Extensions to a large number of secretaries and empanelling officers of the 1984 and 1985 batches of the IAS as secretaries in a single stroke has upset the power equations.

Reactions from serving civil servants, who did not wish to come on record, indicate a sense of unease among the cadres over the developments. There are apprehensions that the morale of bureaucrats who could be placed at a disadvantage following the developments might be affected, leaving the government with a problem on its hands in the coming days.

“It demoralises officers down the line. There is a sanctity to top-level positions. By giving extensions, the position gets weakened. If an officer knows that in the next two years his term would be over and nothing will happen after that then he will take a clear position. But, if there is a carrot hanging before him, he will try to toe the line of the political leaders in the government,” a secretary-level officer told Financial Chronicle.

Ill effects

Explaining the ill effects of frequent extensions, the official said that if a tax official who knows that after his superannuation he will not get a sinecure then he is more likely to work honestly. But in case he is sure of holding the position beyond his superannuation, he will toe the line of the political masters.

On Monday, the government gave one-year extension to Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) chief Sushil Chandra. Before that, cabinet secretary P.K. Sinha also got a one-year extension. Among other top officers who were given extensions recently are Railway Board chairman A.K. Mital and economic affairs secretary Shaktikanta Das.

There is another side to this. Some bureaucrats feel that extensions send out the message that the person is close to the power centre. As a result, he is unlikely to be challenged by fellow officials even when he steps over the line or violates rules. This, in their view, would pose a threat to institution-building and affect the enthusiasm of the officers.

“There is an invincibility factor to the position of a bureaucrat but by doing all this you affect that,” another official said.

Some officials pointed out that the government has the liberty to pick officers with whom they are comfortable. But it should not mean that there are knee-jerk reactions and disturb established practices, especially when it adversely affects the career of a bureaucrat.

A top bureaucrat suggested that government should specify the tenure of a functionary when he is being appointed for a few months even though there are chances that his term could be extended. This will not frustrate the other aspirants in contention for the top post.

There are also apprehensions that the delivery mechanism gets affected due to manipulation of the administrative system. "The government delivers its programme through the official machinery. In case the officials feel that the system is being manipulated, then they may not extend their co-operation whole-heartedly. This affects functioning of the government," he said.

A senior bureaucrat, who has headed several key departments at the centre, suggested that top appointments should be transparent and not based on the whims of the political executive. “There are various departments which are not required and should be closed. Earlier, there used to be a limited number of departments. The officers empanelled as secretaries used to be appointed for those posts. The frequent extensions are not good in taste and now there are departments that are not really required,” he said.

There appears to be resentment over the fact that fixed tenures are allowed only in ministries like home and defence as this creates super secretaries. “It means other secretaries are just secretaries while defence and home secretaries are super secretaries. The government can reduce the number of secretaries but all of them, once appointed, should be treated equally," a bureaucrat said.

Value system

Senior bureaucrats argue that there is a certain respect attached to age in Indian culture. By forcing a senior official to work under a junior officer the value system gets undermined. One of the officials cited the example of appointment of Viral Acharya as RBI deputy governor who is aged only 43 but has to deal with joint secretaries in the finance ministry. The joint secretary may not be able to give due respect to him as he is much younger to him.

The official pointed to the situation in the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), saying many officers are batch-mates of the CVC chief. “Hierarchy is breaking at many places,” he said.

He pointed out that there is no redressal mechanism in the government. This is weakening the system. The government is experimenting with new things but in the process rules are getting violated and institutions demolished, he said.

nirbhaykumar@mydigitalfc.com