CODES OF CONDUCT FOR CIVIL SERVANTS
General Principles and Approach
We will now consider codes of conduct in the sphere of public service. In recent times, with changing theoretical approaches to public administration and higher expectations from public servants, codes of conduct in public sphere assumed greater importance. Codes of conduct have existed in Indian administrative system since long. They serve the following purposes:
¤ Codes of Conduct increase the possibility that government servants will act in public interest and will avoid improper forms of behaviour.
¤ By continuously comparing their conduct against prescribed norms, civil servants get into the habit of doing the right things.
¤ Codes of conduct express the commitment of civil servants to certain moral standards.
¤ The codes set standards for public servants and express their special responsibility as members of civil administrative system.
¤ Codes of conduct can prove effective by appealing to one’s pride and moral sense or by creating a sense of remorse for wrong doing.
International organizations have recognised the usefulness of codes of conduct in international anti-corruption agreements. The U.N. Convention against Corruption (2003) recognised a public service code as necessary for prevention of corruption:
States mustendeavour to ensure thattheirpublicservicesaresubjecttosafeguardsthatpromoteefficiency, transparency, and recruitment based on merit. Once recruited, public servants should be subject to codes of conduct, requirements for financial and other disclosures, and appropriate disciplinary measures. Transparency and accountability in matters of public finance must also be promoted, and specific requirements are established for the prevention of corruption, in the particularly critical areas of the public sector, such as the judiciary and public procurement. Those, who use public services, must expect a high standard of conduct from their public servants.
The motto that “public service is a public trust” recognises that compared to ordinary citizens, public servants enjoy many powers and privileges. Hence, codes of conduct for civil servants impose special obligations and restrictions on exercise of public power and authority. Codes of conduct are normally written documents. Besides the explicit codes, there are implicit unwritten norms too. Service or regimental traditions in the army fall in this category. They are found in expressions like ‘not done’ or ‘not cricket’.
Seven Principles of Public life
The commonly stated principles of public service include: avoiding use of public office for private gain (integrity), displaying impartiality in performing duties (objectivity), and the concept of public service being a public trust (probity and effectiveness). Together these define a common mission for public servants. One famous example of an Ethics Code comprises the Seven Principles of Public Life which the Committee on Standards in Public Life in Great Britain formulated. Prime Minister John Major created the committee in 1994 with wide terms of reference: “To examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all office holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities, and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required toensurethe highest standards of propriety inpubliclife.” It defined office holders widely as including all elected officials and civil servants at the national and local levels.
The ‘Seven Principles of Public Life’ which the Committee recommended should apply to all in the public service consist of the following.
Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Accountability
Holders of publicoffice areaccountable fortheirdecisionsand actions to thepublicand must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
Differences in Codes of Conduct
The purpose of codes of conduct is mainly to forestall undesirable conduct such as conflict of interest, self-dealing, bribery, and abuse of public office. Codes can be either short or long; but they tend to be quite detailed. Their emphasis is normally on prohibiting various types of undesirable conduct.
The types of civil service misconduct can change over time. The following “Duties of Public officials” which the US postmaster General Amos Kendall issued in 1829 (following major scandals) cover mainly office discipline. In contrast, modern codes of conduct are longer and contain many generic rules. Generic rules are general principles each of which covers many individual instances.
I. Every clerk will be in his room, ready to commencebusiness, at nine o’clock A.M., and will apply himself with diligence to the public service until Three o’clock P.M.
II. Every clerk will hold himself in readiness to discharge any duty which may be required of him in office hours or out, in no case where by labouring a short time after office hours an account can be closed or a citizen released fromattendance at this city, must he refrain fromcontinuing his labours afterthreeo’clock.
III. Newspapers or books must not be read in the office unless connected directly with the business in hand, nor must conversation be held with visitors or loungers except upon business which they may have with the office.
IV. Gambling, drunkenness, and irregular and immoral habits will subject any clerk to instant removal.
V. The acceptance of any present or gratuity by any clerk from any person who has business with the office, or suffering such acceptance by any member of his family, will subject any clerk to instant removal.
VI. Thedisclosure to any person outof the office ofanyinvestigation goingon, oranyfacts ascertained in the office, affecting the reputation ofany citizen, is strictly prohibited without leave of the Auditor.
VII. No person will be employed as a clerk in this office who is engaged in other business. Except the attention which the families of clerks require, it is expected that all their time, thoughts, and energies will be devoted to the public service.
VIII. Strict economy will be required in the use of the public stationery or other property. No clerk will take paper, quills, or anything else belonging to the government from the office for use of himself, family, orfriends.
The points of this code of conduct are still valid today. Codes of conduct may range over a wide spectrum. At one extreme, are integrity based codes; at the other are compliance based codes. The integrity based codes merely outline the desired values. The civil servants are expected to imbibe the values and convert them into suitable behavioural principles of conduct. Some OECD nations and Australia followthis pattern.
Compliance based systems contain detailed rules of conduct, listing mainly the impermissible types of conduct. Those who infringe the rules invite disciplinary action. One criticism made against such rules is that they secure compliance at a minimal level. They generally do not inspire government servants to aim at higher standards.
Official codes of conduct in India have a long history. Without going too far back into it, we may note that in 1930s, a compendium of instructions containing ‘do’s and don’ts’ was issued and collectively called ‘Conduct Rules’. The compendium was given the shape of distinct rules in 1955. The Santhanam Committee recommended considerable enlargement of such rules. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules (1964) and similar rules applicable to members of the All India Services and employees of various State Governments are based on them. These rules have been updated to include additional norms of behaviour which cover: the requirement of observing courtesy, prohibiting demanding and accepting dowry, prohibiting sexual harassment of women employees, and, recently, prohibition on employing children below 14 years of age as domestic help. These reflect the changing, often increasing expectations of society, from the civil services.
Specific Content of Codes of Conduct
Central Government has prescribed conduct rules for its officers and staff. Different conduct rules apply to different categories of officers belonging to All India Services (IAS/IFS/IPS/Indian Forest Service), Central Services (such as Indian Revenue Service and Indian Information Service) and to Central Secretariat Service. State governments have made conduct rules for those serving under them. However, the conduct rules for different services under the Centre and the States are similar.
The conduct rules are usually written in semi-legalistic bureaucratic language. They are laced with many explanations and clarifications. Many rules have been reformulated. We need not, however, concern ourselves with these minutiae. It is sufficient for our purpose to follow the nature
of the conduct rules. For this purpose, we will consider the All India Services conduct rules. As mentioned earlier, conduct rules for other services are broadly similar.
While performing their official duties and exercising their powers, officers have to act in their best judgment. In other words, they have to do what they think is true and correct in any particular matter (or case in official parlance). They should act independently according to applicable rules and regulations, unmindful of any external influences. But if higher officersgive them oral or written directions, they have to follow such orders.
Governments are hierarchical organizations. No government official acts singly – except when he/she is hearing matters in a quasi-judicial capacity. In many situations, administrative decision- making mimics (partly) judicial procedures. For example, while hearing an appeal from the order of an Income tax officer, Deputy Income tax commissioner decides on his own without inputs from others in his office. But many matters the are processed from the lower levels of hierarchy and is decided at a higher level. Such decisions and the underlying reasons are recorded in writing in files.
Case Studies