The StateCivil SuppliesCorporation has been entrusted withthe task of moving kerosene needed for PDS system from district to tehsil and sub-tehsil towns. Forthis purpose, it had to finalizetransport tenders for each district. In one of the districts, the tender rates received were very high and the managing director of the corporation decides to call fresh tenders. However, in tenders received initially which the managing director (MD) decides to reject as too high, the lowest rate is from the supporter of the cabinet minister for civil supplies. Citing the need of rushing supplies urgently to rural areas,the ministerasksthe managingdirector to acceptthelowest tender.Theministerfurther argues that it would be procedurally correct. Fearing likely audit objections and their fallout, the managing director refuses to do so. When the minister insists, the managing director asks him to send him written orders. The minister accuses the officer of being bureaucratic and sticky.
What can we say about the reaction of the MD in this case?
1. The MD’s behaviour is bureaucratic and rule bound.
2. The MD’s stand is justified.
3. The MD is ignoring the inconvenience his action will cause to public.
4. The MD has first delayed procurement, and is then creating further difficulties.
The first view is unjustified. It just uses adjectives to criticise the MD’s action without looking at all the circumstances. Many public systems are bureaucratic organisations, and there is no point in using the term in an abusive sense. It is also true that public systems are bound by rules. But they are necessary in order to secure financial propriety and to ensure equity.
The MD is justified in asking the minister for written orders. The minister is not supposed to interfere in the internal working of the corporation which is regulated by the Companies Act. Further, it is not necessary to accept the lowest rate if all the rates are high, and if the lowest rate is also above the market rate. The MD has to ascertain whether the rates received in response to the tender are reasonable. Acceptable rates have to be in line with market rates. In the absence of written orders from the minister, the MD will be held responsible for losses caused due to payment of higher than market rates. He will be left holding the can.
The third view is also unacceptable. The MD is not deliberately causing inconvenience to people. Because of the high rates received, he is forced by rules to retender. The decision was forced upon him. He cannot flout the prescribed rules.
The last view is irrelevant to the point at issue. The simple point is whether or not to accept the tenders which are above market rates. This view obfuscates the issue. Incidentally, it is a common weakness of our countrymen to ignore main issues in any debate and chase irrelevant or peripheral points. There is nothing in the narration to suggest that the MD delayed matters.
Officers have to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of Government servants under their administrative control. Integrity mainly connotes honesty in a wide sense. A civil servant should not only refuse bribes (or illegal gratification in official parlance) but also display intellectual honesty.
‘Lack of devotion to duty’ has many manifestations. The conduct rules mention habitual failure to complete work with expected quality within prescribed time as one such manifestation. Here, the conduct rules indirectly refer to commitment to duty expected of a civil servant. There is also a reference to the high work standard and diligence expected from civil servants.
Reporting Details of Properties and Transactions
The conduct rules contain provisions which track the property and financial dealings of civil servants. Their purpose is to ensure that civil servants do not amass wealth (or acquire properties disproportionate to their known sources of income) by misusing their official position. A government servant cannot acquire any immovable property by any means (such as purchase, lease or gift) in his name or in that of any of his family members without government approval. Nor can he sell or dispose of any immovable property without similar approval. Civil servants are prohibited from speculating on stock markets and from undertaking investment and lending and similar financial operations.They arealsoprohibitedfromundertakingany privatetradeorbusiness.Theyhaveto submit everyyear an annualpropertystatement showing alltheirproperties.
These are important provisions for ensuring the honesty of civil servants. These rules are like disclosure norms. Civil servants are under an obligation to intimate government of their property transactions and property holdings. This procedure also ensures transparency. It also acts as a deterrent to wrongdoing. For, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, civil servants are liable to prosecution if they own assets disproportionate to their known sources of income.
The conduct rules prohibit civil servants from using their influence to secure jobs for their family members in companies, firms or non government organizations. By doing so, a government servant places himself under an obligation to private persons or companies. This will jeopardize his independence and neutrality. Such practices can lead to ‘crony capitalism’ in which elites in government and individual entrepreneurs share cosy relationships. As a result,losses are caused to public exchequer through ‘sweetheart deals’ between government and industries it favours.
To avoid such perils, the conduct rules provide that civil servants should avoid getting into ‘conflict of interest’ situations. These are situations in which a civil servant dealing with a matter has a personal interest or stake in it. Thus, a civil servant should avoid dealing with any matter (including award of contract) relating to a private undertaking or non government organization in which a member of his family is employed or in which he has a financial interest. Similar situations arise when judges have to hear cases of individuals or firms whom they represented while practising at bar. Judges recuse themselves from such cases i.e. will not hear them.