Representational imageOne was reminded of Emergency days when news broke that the personnel department of the central government is making plans to measure the trustworthiness of employees. It was during the Emergency days that one heard about concepts such as committed bureaucracy and committed judiciary.
During those times, it was required of the bureaucracy and the judiciary to behave as per the wish and fancies of those who ruled at the centre. People such as Jayaprakash Narayanan and others strongly opposed this tendency, however, with no effect.
Ironically, after the Emergency ended, a new government was formed and the new Janata government experiment introduced old concepts in a new name.
Barely one week after the Janata government came to power, all top officials in the central government were issued a circular in which it was requested that all officials need to imbibe the manifesto of the government. This was a new version of Indira Gandhi's committed bureaucracy. When the short-lived Janata experiment crashed, Indira Gandhi's ideas came back with much more force, ably supported by her son Sanjay Gandhi.
The driving force behind all these was the underlying requirement of politicians that officials had to behave as they wished, or worse, only as they wished. The development that saw the Janata government withdrawing the nomination of a candidate proposed as the secretary general of the world customs organisation just a day before the election backs the claim.
Trustworthiness is an attribute of a person who would conduct the whims and fancies of the government most sincerely. When yearly appraisals are conducted, candidates who score at least a 'very good' in the 'integrity' column are only considered for promotion. The assessment checks whether an official can be entrusted with a job. That is the reason why certain officials receive certain duties. Drawing a line to differentiate the corrupt and the honest is difficult.
Sincerity of an official should be measured in how effectively he or she implements activities that are aimed for the betterment of the people. The government can also force officials to implement such activities.
If however an official is branded as not trustworthy, it means that such officials are not sincere to those who framed the laws. The new system runs the risk of parties branding an official as not trustworthy because he or she does not care for their needs. Thus the new system can be misused. If all the loopholes are not sealed effectively, the number of cases reaching the administrative tribunal would only increase.
(The author is a former member of the central administrative tribunal)
Disclaimer
The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Manorama. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.