Concerned at the government’s tendency to readily waive the mandatory one-year cooling off period for the retired bureaucrats who want to take up private sector jobs, a parliamentary standing committee has suggested that they should be given the option to quit service at the age of 55, five years ahead of the retirement age, if they want to join the private sector.

“There could be a reform in the system where at the age of 55 one can be given an option whether he would like to continue in the government or go to the private sector. If he wants to go to the private sector, he need not stay in the government till 60 years and take a decision in favour of his future employers and then cause embarrassment to so many people at a later stage,” the 60th report of the parliamentary standing committee on department of personnel said. The report was presented before both the houses of parliament on May 3.

The committee was examining the issue of post-retirement private sector jobs taken up by the bureaucrats and the conflict of interest involved.
According to the all-India service rules, bureaucrats have to wait for a year after retirement to take up a job in the private sector. The idea behind the mandatory one-year cooling off period is to avoid conflict of interest as senior bureaucrats at key positions in important ministries routinely join private companies with which they had dealings as government servants.

However, more often than not, the cooling off period is waived when the bureaucrats seek permission from the government to join the private sector within a year of retirement.

The latest example is R Chandrashekhar, the former IT secretary who is set to head NASSCOM. Besides Chandrashekhar, there are numerous other examples of bureaucrats who joined the private sector within months of their retirement. In 2011, the government gave permission to five retired IAS officers to join the private sector, three which include former revenue secretary Sunil Mitra, former civil aviation secretary M Madhavan Nambiar and former home secretary GK Pillai.

Taking note of such cases of waivers, the parliamentary standing committee felt that the possibility of senior officials, who hold vital and sensitive posts while in the government, getting influenced by the lure of plum private sector jobs post retirement, could not be ignored.
In order to avoid such a scenario, the committee directed the department of personnel and training (DoPT) to consider this aspect (conflict of interest) in depth and come out with fresh guidelines on the subject in consultation with the stakeholders. 

The case of conflict of interest first came to fore in the case of former telecom secretary Pradip Baijal (an IAS officer of 1966 batch), who joined a company promoted by corporate lobbyist Niira Radia, immediately after his retirement in 2006. 

A former telecom secretary, who retired as the chairman of the telecom regulatory authority of India (TRAI), a regulatory body that framed policies for the government in the area of telecom, joining a firm that lobbied for telecom companies was a clear-cut case of conflict of interest. 

It is in context of such cases of conflict of interest that the parliamentary standing committee directed DoPT to come out with fresh guidelines and also suggested the option of giving the bureaucrats the freedom to leave service at the age of 55.

The rationale for the “freedom to quit service at 55” is that the officers at such age could be at the position of joint secretary or below, and therefore, unlike an additional secretary or secretary, would not be in a position to take important policy decisions.
Former bureaucrat Kamal Kant Jaswal who retired as secretary, department of information technology, however, rubbished the standing committee suggestion.

“Joint secretary is an important rank and he is certainly in a position to take very important decisions. I would say ‘put a complete ban on retired bureaucrats taking up private sector jobs’,” Jaswal said.  
 
The cooling-off period, which was brought down to one year from two in 2007, said Jaswal, is a farce. “Bureaucrats find ways to circumvent it anyway,” he said.

Mukesh Kacker, an IAS of 1979 batch, who took voluntary retirement to start his own consultancy firm, said the government had no business dictating where one worked after retirement.  

“Why should the government dictate where I work? After all, I have given 30-35 years to the government,” he said.
On the cooling-off period, he said, it did not make any sense and the government should do away with it entirely. “In case I want to join a company in favour of which I had taken a decision in my capacity as additional secretary or secretary, I would wait for a year, the mandatory cooling-off period, and then join it,” he said.  

The solution, according to Kacker, is that the government must establish the ‘quid pro quo’ case when a bureaucrat seeks permission to join a private firm.
What it means is, he said, that once a bureaucrat retires and seeks permission to join a private firm, the government should take a look at the decisions made by that bureaucrat in the last few years, and if he has extended any favour to the company he wishes to join. In case he has not, he should be allowed to join that company.  

“There should a consensus on the period that has to be taken into account for looking for a quid pro quo connection. According to me, it should be five years,” he said.

Like the views of Kacker and Jaswal that are divergent on the subject, the entire bureaucracy is divided on similar lines: some for waiving the entire cooling off period with freedom to join any private sector company and others for a complete ban on the retired bureaucrats for doing the same.
All eyes are on the DoPT now.