The unintended consequences of “Agreed List”
I find that the agreed list is meant only for the purpose of intensive vigilance and carrying out preventive checks. Once an officer is placed in an agreed list, the consequences include his transfer from sensitive posts, and debarment from sensitive work like participation in tender committees and selection committees, arbitration etc. Unfortunately I find that there is a disconnect between the purpose for which the list is made and consequences it causes. In fact, the variance is of such magnitude that it appears that the consequences are almost unintended and irrational to the purpose and aim.
The aim with which such lists are prepared is indeed laudable, and it is nobody’s case that intensive vigilance should not be carried out, especially on those public servants, on whose integrity there is even an iota of doubt. However, one needs to dispassionately evaluate the necessity & desirability as well as the effectiveness of the measures that are presently recommended to be taken by the administration for the persons who are borne on such agreed lists.
Firstly, what I find disturbing is the fact that the person who is placed on the agreed list is not informed about it. This is also in apparent contradiction with the process of evaluating the integrity of a person while writing the Annual confidential report of an officer. If any doubt regarding the integrity of an officer is to be endorsed in his ACR, then not only an elaborate procedure is to be followed, but it is also mandatory to inform such officer regarding the doubts expressed about his integrity. After all, every person is expected to have some self respect, born out of integrity and devotion to duty which he is expected and believed to possess axiomatically, and which he is not called upon to prove at the drop of a hat. Since, such self respect of an individual may be severely compromised if doubts are expressed about his integrity, we must be not only be very sure that there are valid and reasonable grounds of doing so, but we must also be very sensitive about it.
I find that not communicating to the officer that he has been placed on the agreed list, tantamount to making comments “behind the back”, and is almost slanderous if not “gossipy”, which the administration need not be a part of. Since, the administration deems it fit to inform the concerned officer if doubts are expressed regarding his integrity in his ACR, I do not find any reason not to do the same if he is placed on the agreed list. I do not find it logical and rational for the administration to follow two different courses of action when the cause of such action is the same – that there is some doubt over the integrity of a person. Neither the purpose of making an agreed list will be defeated nor do I anticipate any other adverse consequence if the officer who is placed in the agreed list is informed about it. In this era of RTI Act, the time for such idea of open communication has arrived and needs to be implemented without any further delay.
In my long years of service, I have noticed that when a person is placed on an agreed list, it becomes an “open secret”. Such an “open secret” is only confirmed by administrations actions like transferring him or stripping him of all “sensitive” works like decision making, tenders, selections etc. This “official ostracisation” slowly but surely leads to isolation and hushed ridicule even in social interactions of the officer. Such social stigma leads to demoralization and a feeling of victimization. Frustration and depression are compounded by the fact that unlike in D&AR cases where he has a chance to defend himself, there are no avenues for redressal open to him. I believe that the administration by transferring an officer or denying him certain types of work is “de-facto” punishing an officer, although I know, “de-jure” he has not been punished. I find that such “de-facto” punishment without providing him an opportunity to be heard violates the principles of Natural Justice.
I understand that the purpose of preparing an agreed list is to keep under observation, officers whose integrity and honesty “is under cloud”. In this context, I find that the Honbl’ Supreme court of India, in the case of K. V. Jankiraman Vs UOI has ruled that a person’s integrity and honesty may be considered “under cloud” only after major penalty charge sheet has been served to him in a vigilance case. Such a definition of integrity and honesty being “under cloud” is both objective and binding. We are at not at a liberty to either make a subjective assessment of an officer’s integrity and honesty or extrapolate a situation that demand administrative action of transfer or denial of “sensitive work”.
Since we are all humans, one cannot rule out that in some cases it may so happen that an officer is placed on agreed list due to personal bias against him. From my experience, I also know that such a situation is not impossible. Since there is at least a theoretical possibility of a situation that an officer is placed in agreed list due to personal bias, it is all the more important that such matters are invariably communicated to the concerned officers in all the cases and he is neither transferred nor debarred from any type of work so that he is denied an opportunity to feel victimized or punished.
In any case nothing stops the vigilance organisation to conduct intensive and & preventive checks even if an officer who is placed in agreed list continues in sensitive posts and continues doing sensitive work. In fact, if a person is in a non-sensitive position or does no sensitive work, it would be very difficult to come to a conclusive decision regarding his honesty and to judge his integrity.
In fact if an officer is debarred from doing sensitive work based on unsubstantiated allegations regarding the doubtfulness of his honesty and integrity, apart from his individual sense of victimization that such officer may feel, the administration also fails to utilize the person fully and is forced to carry a “lame duck” person without actually penalizing him. This is a “lose - lose” situation for both. The administration may also be accused of adopting a soft option and shirking its responsibility of “calling a spade a spade” and not formally charging an officer despite having fair knowledge about the lack of honesty and integrity of an officer. Further, since most of the sensitive decisions like tenders, selections etc are made by a group rather than by an individual, the final decision arrived at need not be considered as tainted or doubtful, merely because the presence of one individual whose intention may be perceived as unscrupulous.
I fully subscribe to the view that Public servants in their conduct should be like Ceasers wife – beyond suspicion, but being a conscientious person, what worries me is the lack of avenues of redressal for the person who is placed on such a list. Whereas, probity in public life is of utmost importance, I believe the tenants of Natural justice can also not be compromised. A fine balance needs to be maintained between both and neither can be sacrificed in order to achieve the other. I am totally convinced that our proud tradition of ensuring the principles of natural justice whereby one may allow a hundred guilty to go scot-free rather that punish one innocent person, needs to be placed in a higher pedestal.
I am thus of the considered view that it is not logical or necessary to transfer a officer from sensitive post or debar an officer from sensitive work even if he is placed on the agreed list.
(Comments are welcome- lets have a healthy debate)
-D. K. Shrivastava
SAG/IRSS
presently on deputation
to Govt of
No comments:
Post a Comment