Indian Alleged Service - The Liberated Babu - Fixed tenure; no oral orders and Civil Services Board - SC Landmark Order
IN a landmark judgement delivered yesterday in a writ petition filed by former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian and some eminent retired civil servants highlighting the necessity of various reforms for preservation of integrity, fearlessness and independence of civil servants at the Centre and State levels in the country, the Supreme Court directed the Centre and the States to constitute a Civil Services Board and to provide for a fixed tenure for the babus.
The Supreme Court observed,
"Civil servants have to function in accordance with the Constitution and the laws made by the Parliament. In the present political scenario, the role of civil servants has become very complex and onerous. Often they have to take decisions, which will have far reaching consequences in the economic and technological fields. Their decisions must be transparent and must be in public interest. They should be fully accountable to the community they serve.
Civil Services Board: CSB, 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, could be a better alternative (till the Parliament enacts a law), to guide and advise the State Government on all service matters, especially on transfers, postings and disciplinary action, etc., though their views also could be overruled, by the political executive, but by recording reasons, which would ensure good governance, transparency and accountability in governmental functions. Parliament can also under Article 309 of the Constitution enact a Civil Service Act, setting up a CSB, which can guide and advice the political executive transfer and postings, disciplinary action, etc. CSB consisting of experts in various fields like administration, management, science, technology, could bring in more professionalism, expertise and efficiency in governmental functioning."
The Supreme Court directed the Centre, State Governments and the Union Territories to constitute such Boards with high ranking serving officers, who are specialists in their respective fields, within a period of three months, if not already constituted, till the Parliament brings in a proper legislation in setting up CSB.
Minimum Tenure: The Supreme Court noticed that, at present the civil servants are not having stability of tenure, particularly in the State Governments where transfers and postings are made frequently, at the whims and fancies of the executive head for political and other considerations and not in public interest. The necessity of minimum tenure has been endorsed and implemented by the Union Government. Fixed minimum tenure would not only enable the civil servants to achieve their professional targets, but also help them to function as effective instruments of public policy. Repeated shuffling/transfer of the officers is deleterious to good governance. Minimum assured service tenure ensures efficient service delivery and also increased efficiency. They can also prioritize various social and economic measures intended to implement for the poor and marginalized sections of the society.
The Supreme Court directed the Union State Governments and Union Territories to issue appropriate directions to secure providing of minimum tenure of service to various civil servants, within a period of three months.
Oral Orders/instructions: The Supreme Court is of the view that the civil servants cannot function on the basis of verbal or oral instructions, orders, suggestions, proposals, etc. and they must also be protected against wrongful and arbitrary pressure exerted by the administrative superiors, political executive, business and other vested interests. Further, civil servants shall also not have any vested interests. Resultantly, there must be some records to demonstrate how the civil servant has acted, if the decision is not his, but if he is acting on the oral directions, instructions, he should record such directions in the file. If the civil servant is acting on oral directions or dictation of anybody, he will be taking a risk, because he cannot later take up the stand, the decision was in fact not his own. Recording of instructions, directions is, therefore, necessary for fixing responsibility and ensure accountability in the functioning of civil servants and to uphold institutional integrity.
By acting on oral directions, not recording the same, the rights guaranteed to the citizens under the Right to Information Act, could be defeated. The practice of giving oral directions/instructions by the administrative superiors, political executive etc. would defeat the object and purpose of RTI Act and would give room for favoritism and corruption.
The Supreme Court directed all the State Governments and Union Territories to issue directions like Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, in their respective States and Union Territories which will be carried out within three months.
Last week a Superintendent of Police in Andhra Pradesh challenged his transfer before the CAT on the ground that he should have a tenure of two years.
Will the Supreme Court judgement reinforce the Steel Frame?