Whatever we might know or not know about our bureaucracy and its working, this much is pretty well known: once an IAS officer, always an IAS officer. From probation until retirement and beyond, IAS officers enjoy the certitude of office and increment like few government jobs can guarantee.

But this could change soon.

In what might be a first, the government has recommended the names of three IAS officers for premature retirement on account of inefficiency.  While these ‘unmade officials’ have gone in for appeal, the final order, if it leads to their compulsory retirement, could change the very basis of a babu’s job: security, perpetuity, permanency.     

Though provision for evaluating the performance of officers at senior positions has existed in rulebook, it had never been invoked. And while bureaucrats have been sacked for corruption, never has anyone been chucked out for inefficiency and mediocrity.

Under All-India Service Rule (AIS), amended and notified by the department of personnel and training (DoPT) last year, the Centre has begun the process of reviewing the performance of officers in consultations with the states. As a result of this review process, three officers from the AGMUT (Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram, and union territories) cadre have been identified for premature retirement under this new rule, according to a report in the Hindustan Times.
Here’s what the rule, notified on January 31 last year, says: “The central government may, in consultation with the state government concerned, require a member of the service to retire from service in public interest, after giving such member at least three month’s previous notice in writing or three month’s pay and allowances in lieu of such notice.”

Post-notification, the DoPT also issued detailed guidelines to implement the rule: “The objective of the rule, firstly, is to weed out officers of doubtful integrity and secondly, to weed out officers who have outlived their utility and have become inefficient or ineffective.”

Last year, the DoPT made it mandatory for every state to undertake a two-stage performance review of bureaucrats – after 15 and 25 years of service, respectively – and sack those found slack or inefficient.

According to DoPT officials, in notifying the new rule the government has accepted the Veerappa Moily panel’s report on administrative reforms. In 2008, the second administrative reform commission (ARC), headed by the senior Congress leader, had recommended sacking of government officers after 20 years of service if they are found to be inefficient.

The 10th ARC report – Refurbishing of Personnel Administration – said that all public servants should be subjected to two intensive reviews: first on completion of 14 years and then after putting in 20 years of service.

“Their (bureaucrats’) continuance beyond 20 years will depend on the outcome of these reviews. It should be expressly provided that all new recruitment will be for a period of 20 years and their continuance beyond that would depend on intensive reviews,” the report said.

What also seems to have forced the hands of the DoPT this time, according sources in the department, is the push from prime minister Manmohan Singh, who had originally mooted the idea of invoking the rules in the first place after he assumed office in 2004. “With IAS officers presiding at all decision-making positions, do you think this could have happened without a push from the prime minister’s office?” remarked a DoPT official on condition of anonymity.

Cagey welcome by ex-bureaucrat

“It’s undoubtedly good news, if it’s true,” said Nirpender Mishra, a former bureaucrat who retired as chairman of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). “The government could sack bureaucrats for their inefficiency even (earlier) without the amendment but it chose not to ever do that. So I’m not sure even now new notification will change anything. But, yes, it will be good for Indian bureaucracy if it does help weed out inefficient officers.”

Fellow former bureaucrat Mukesh Kacker also welcomed the move but said he remains skeptical about its enforcement. “To implement this notification, which aims to bring efficiency, will need efficiency on part of the government,” he said.

PS Bawa, former president of Transparency International’s India chapter, said senior bureaucrats in higher echelons will strongly oppose implementation of the rule. Explaining that the level of Inefficiency in a bureaucrat peaks about five years before he/she is due for retirement, Bawa said, ”During this period, the officer, looking at post-retirement benefits, cuts deals with political masters and hence forgets about his primary duty. Now if this bureaucrat was to be judged on his performance, he will definitely fall into the category of inefficient. So obviously he would not want such a rule (to be) enforced.”

Bawa is, however, optimistic that it is a step in the right direction. “The logic sounds good and it is very much required. If implemented sincerely, it will go a long way in cleansing the system,” he said.

P Krishnan, who retired as social welfare department secretary, also shared Bawa’s optimism: “Certainly it is a very good first step towards addressing the slackness and inefficiency in higher echelons of the government. However, the government should give bureaucrats an opportunity to explain their side. If it does not, the rule could be challenged in the court.”

Promising on paper

The amended rules and detailed guidelines from the DoPT do look very promising on paper.   “Premature or compulsory retirement contemplated by the aforesaid rule is designed to infuse the administration with initiative and it merely seeks to strike a just balance between the termination of the completed career of a tired employee and maintenance of top efficiency in the diverse activities of administration.”

According to the rule, the state governments are required to carry out a review in respect of (i) all officers who have completed 15 years of qualifying service; (ii) all officers who have completed 25 years of qualifying service or attained the age of 50 years, or whichever is earlier, (iii) in case of state service officers appointed to an All-India Service by promotion or by selection, they should have completed a minimum of 5 years of actual service in the respective All-India Service.

Explaining the need for such a rule, the DoPT guidelines said, “It is sometimes found that a few members of All-India Services do tend to become mere passengers in the post or at the level in which a member is placed for the time being. They become either stale or listless; they do not exhibit any creativity or  innovativeness; and they do not achieve results. In some other cases, information may be available which casts grave doubt upon the integrity of a member.

“In some other cases the overall grade or assessment given on the performance of a member of an All-India Service is “average”. To describe a member of an All-India Service as average is not complimentary. While it may not be an adverse remark, it is nevertheless a reflection upon his work or conduct and should be taken to indicate output, which is ordinary and routine. Remarks like “Adequate” and “Satisfactory” over a period of 5-7 years, without mention of any notable achievement, would also indicate that the member has reached a plateau.”

The review system

In reviewing the performance of an officer, his /her entire service records would be considered, according to the guidelines. It will take into account all relevant records, including personal file, and hence the review would not be confined to the consideration of the annual confidential report (ACR) or performance appraisal report (PAR) dossier.

Similarly, the work and performance of the officer could also be assessed by looking into files dealt with by him, or in any papers or reports prepared and submitted by him/her.

“In a number of cases, officers take action for concluding contracts, settling claims, assessing taxes or duties payable etc. Doubts may have arisen relating to the bona fide nature of the action taken by the officer but on account of inadequate proof it may not have been possible to initiate action for a regular departmental inquiry, leading finally to a punishment of the nature that may find entry in the ACR/PAR dossier of the officer. But the personal file of the officer may have details of the nature of doubt that arose regarding the integrity of the officer and the result of the preliminary investigation that was carried out and this would constitute vital information.”

Reviewing the integrity of an officer

While reviewing the integrity of an officer, the review committee would take into account entries relating to integrity in the officer’s ACR/PAR dossier. Even if a particular remark in integrity has not been communicated to the officer, or if the remark is of a general nature, the review committee could take into account the remarks while reviewing any proposal for premature retirement.

Reviewing the efficiency of an officer

Explaining the need to evaluate the efficiency of an officer, the DoPT guidelines say: “The higher the level reached by a government servant, the higher will be the responsibilities entrusted to him and hence higher will be the expectations of government that these responsibilities are  discharged with exemplary competence, efficiency and effectiveness.”

In order to assess if such expectations are being fulfilled the government will review an officer’s performance at two levels: first, after he/she has rendered 15 years of qualifying service and again when completion of 25 years of qualifying service or attaining the age of 50 years.

While the entire service record of an officer will be considered at the time of review, greater emphasis will be placed on his performance during the five years preceding the review. If, during this five-year period, there is evidence of deterioration in efficiency and unsatisfactory performance, the review committee will examine the entire service record and arrive at a total picture about the suitability or otherwise of the officer to continue, according to DoPT.
“In a case in which the physical or mental condition of an officer is such as to make him inefficient, it would be appropriate to consider him for retirement in public interest,” the guidelines say.

The officers who will be retired prematurely, however, will not be denied pension benefits.

...

WHAT

As per DoPT rule, state governments required to carry out a review in respect of

(i)     all officers who have completed 15 years of qualifying service;

(ii)     all officers who have completed 25 years of qualifying service or attained the age of 50 years, or whichever is earlier,

(iii)     in case of state service officers appointed to an All-India Service by promotion or by selection, they should have completed minimum 5 years of actual service.

WHY

“It is sometimes found that a few members of All-India Services tend to become mere passengers in the post or at the level in which a member is placed for the time being. They become either stale or listless; they do not exhibit any creativity or  innovativeness; and they do not achieve results. In some other cases, information may be available which casts grave doubt upon the integrity of a member,” say new DoPT guidelines.

HOW

• Reviewing integrity of an officer, committee to look at entries relating to integrity in the officer’s ACR/PAR dossier.
• Committee can take into account the remarks while reviewing any proposal for premature retirement even if a particular remark has not been communicated to the officer, or if that remark is of a general nature.
• For review of efficiency, entire service record of an officer will be considered
• More emphasis on his/her performance during the five years preceding the review.
• If there is evidence of deterioration in efficiency and unsatisfactory performance in this five-year period, review committee to examine the entire service record to figure out suitability or otherwise of the officer to continue.

WHEN

• Government will review an officer’s performance at two levels: first, after he/she has rendered 15 years of qualifying service;
• and a second time after completion of 25 years of qualifying service, or attaining the age of 50.
•