LET US JOIN HANDS IN MAKING THIS CHARTER A SUCCESS!
There have been various evaluations of Citizen’s Charters. The findings have been generally negative. But there have been notable successes too. Among the successful examples which find mention in
an official document of the Ministry of Personnel are: Regional Transport Office, Hyderabad; Jan Sewa Kendra, Ahmedabad; Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chennai and Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board. However, there may be many other success stories. At least, the concept of a citizen’s charter is now firmly lodged in the minds of governments and citizens. By January 2011, Central Government departments finalized 131 citizens charters and state government departments finalized 729 Citizen’s Charters.
In an early study which the Ministry of Personnel commissioned, the following weaknesses were found. The impact of Citizen’s Charters was reduced due to poor service delivery standards and under-performance. There was inadequate feedback from citizens about quality of service, limiting the impact of the Charter. The lack luster performance can be traced to various reasons such as:
¤ Absence of a planned approach to publicity
¤ Limited training and stakeholder involvement
¤ Charter as one among many initiatives
¤ Bureaucratic style of functioning
¤ No systematic identification of stakeholders
¤ Lack of citizen friendly approach and absence of avenues for the stakeholders to interact or give feedback
¤ Poor complaint redressal systems
¤ Poor systems in place
¤ Outdated processes
¤ Inadequate staff training
¤ Centralization
¤ Lack of transparency
¤ Communication failure
¤ Lack of credibility and lack of confidence in the system.
¤ A holistic approach to publicity through press, electronic media and user involvement
¤ ‘Meet the citizen’ programmes by the departments
¤ Changing the behaviour of the officers and staff through coaching, training and incentive systems
¤ Creating customer friendly environment in the offices
¤ Improving accessibility of officers and staff
¤ Training of staff at all levels
¤ Decentralization and delegation of authority
¤ Technology upgradation
¤ Process review and restructuring
¤ Customer confidence building measures, sharinginformation and reports with users of the service
¤ Setting up consultation committees welcoming negative feedback and removing fear from customers
¤ Assuring public that information from feedback will be used to improve services.
Government has since decided to pass a law laying down obligations of every public authority towards citizens, specifying delivery of goods and services in a time-bound manner and providing for a grievance redressal mechanism for non-compliance of Citizen’s Charter. A Bill was introduced in parliament in 2011 for this purpose.
Background
The Bill deals with two rights of citizens. One is time-bound delivery of goods and services. The other is redressal of grievances. The Bill mentions Citizen’s Charter; it is the document that defines the standard of services which a public agency provides. It also gives the time limit for providing the goods and services.
In2007,theSecond AdministrativeReformsCommissionrecommendedthat Citizen’sCharters should stipulate penalties for non-compliance. In 2008, a parliamentary Standing Committee (on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice) recommended giving statutory status to grievance redressal mechanisms. The Central Information Commission also recommended that grievance redressal systems should be strengthened to reduce the public tendency to seek redressal of their grievances through use of the Right to Information Act. It has been found that applicants often resort to RTI Actnot to get information but to have their problems resolved. The President, in her address to Parliament in June 2009, stated that the government would focus on ensuring effective delivery of public services. The Standing Committee that examined the Lokpal Bill, 2011 recommended the creation of a separate legislation to deal with Citizen’s Charters and grievance redressal. The Parliament on August 27, 2011 while adopting the ‘Sense of the House’ Resolution on Lokpal, agreed in principle to the establishment of a Citizen’s Charter. Currently, government departments deal with grievances internally. Persons may also approach the High Court through writ petitions. Further, as on March 2012, several states had enacted laws providing for grievance redressal mechanisms.
Main Provisions of the Bill
¤ The Bill requires public authorities to publish a Citizen’s Charter within six months of enactment of the Bill.
¤ The charter should specify the services and the quality of services to be provided by the public authority.
¤ The heads of departmentsareresponsiblefordisseminatingandupdatingtheCitizen’sCharter.
¤ Public authorities include: (a) constitutional and statutory authorities; (b) entities established under any government notification; and (c) public-private partnerships. They also include NGOs that are substantially government funded, government companies, and companies that provide services under a licence or a statutory obligation.
¤ Public authorities are required to establish Information Facilitation Centres for efficient and effective delivery of services and redressal of grievances. Information Facilitation Centres may include customer care centres, call centres, help desks and people’s support centres.
Public Grievance Redressal Commissions
¤ The Bill establishes Central and State Grievance Redressal Commissions. Each Commission would consist of a Chief Commissioner and upto 10 Commissioners. The Commissioners would be appointed by the President (Governor) on the recommendation of a selection committee.
¤ This committee would consist of the Prime Minister (Chief Minister), the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (Legislative Assembly) and a sitting Supreme Court (High Court) judge.
¤ The Commissioners should be: (a) present or former Secretaries to the central (state) government; or (b) present or former Supreme Court judges or Chief Justices of a High Court (district court judges for 10 years, or High Court judges); or (c) eminent persons with at least 20 years (15 years) of experience in social sectors with a postgraduate degree in a relevant sector.
¤ The Commissioners may be removed by an order of the President (Governor) under certain conditions.
Complaint Mechanism
Complaint: Any citizen may file a complaint covering: (a) failure in delivery of goods or services listed in the Citizen’s Charter; (b) the functioning of the public authority; and (c) any violation of a law, policy, programme, order or scheme. Complaints have to be redressed within 30 working days. Complaints have to be made to the Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO). GROs are to be
appointed by each public authority at the central, state, district, sub-district, municipality and panchayat levels.
¤ The GRO is required to: (a) ensure that grievances are redressed within 30 working days; (b) ensure that disciplinary action is taken against a defaulting officer if he has acted negligently; and (c) recommend penalties and compensation where an individual has wilfully neglected to deliver services or there is a prima facie ground for a case underthe Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. TheGRO has to informthecomplainant about the actiontaken on thecomplaint.
¤ Appeal: The orders of the GRO may be appealed before the Designated Authority (DA). The DA shall be an officer above the rank of the GRO and outside the concerned public authority.
¤ The DA shall dispose of appeals within 30 working days of their receipt. If a complaint with the GRO is not redressed within 30 working days, the GRO has to forward it as an appeal to the DA. The DA may penalize the defaulting officers.
¤ Second Appeal: The DA’s orders may be appealed before the Central or State Public Grievance Redressal Commission within 30 working days. Appeals relating to complaints arising out of functioning of the central (state) departments would lie before the Central (State) Commission. The Commissions have to dispose of the appeal within 60 working days.
¤ Third Appeal: In relation to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, an appeal against the decision of the Commissions shall lie with the Lokpal or the Lokayukta.
¤ Suo motu mechanism: The Central and State Commissions can suo motu refer matters related to non delivery of goods and services to the heads of government departments. The Commissions may also initiate suo motu inquiry if they believe that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter.
¤ Complaints may also be made to the Commissions in certain cases. It is the duty of the Commissions to inquireinto complaints by persons: (a) who are unable to file appeals before the DA; (b) who are refused redress of grievances; (c) whose complaints are not disposed of within 30 days; and (d) who are denied access to the citizen’s charter because it has not been prepared or has not been widely disseminated.
Penalties
¤ GRO: The Bill requires the GRO to recommend penalties to the DA when: (a) he is convinced that the default was due to wilful neglect by an officer; or (b) when there is prima facie evidence of corruption.
¤ DA and Commissions: The Bill empowers the DA and the Commissions to impose a maximum penalty of Rs 50,000 upon the defaulting officer and the GRO. Penalties may be imposed upon the defaulting officer when he has acted in a malafide manner or has failed to discharge his responsibility in a proper manner. A portion of the penalty may be awarded as compensation to the complainant.
¤ If there is evidence of corruption against the defaulting officer, the DA and the Commissions would have to refer the matter to appropriate authorities. Additionally, the DA may initiate proceedings in such cases.
¤ Disciplinary proceedings may be initiated by the GRO, DA and the Commissions against the defaulting officer if there is evidence of malafide action.
¤ In any appeal proceeding, where it is alleged that the grievance has not been redressedby the GRO, the burden of proof shall be on the GRO.
Main Issues
Critics have pointed out certain legal and other difficulties involved in the provisions of the bill. These are briefly outlinedbelow.
¤ Parliament may not have the jurisdiction to regulate the functioning of state public officials as state public services fall withinthe purview of statelegislatures.
¤ This Bill may create a parallel grievance redressal mechanism as many central and state laws have established similar mechanisms.
¤ Companies that render services under a statutory obligation or a licence may be required to publish Citizen’s Charters and provide a grievance redressal mechanism.
¤ The Commissioners may be removed without a judicial inquiry on an allegation of misbehaviour or incapacity. This differs from the procedure under other legislations.
¤ Appeals from the Commissions’ decisions on matters of corruption will lie before the Lokpal or Lokayuktas. The Lokpal Act has come into force recently, and some Lokayuktas have not been established.
Summary
¤ The functions of government fall into two broad heads: legal exercise of authority and provision of services. Modern states are welfare States and provide a wide range of public services to their citizens.
¤ The services cover areas such as education, health, housing and transport. Services also include such requirements as a driving license, telephone connection, gas connection, tax refund, Aadhaar card, passport, and extracts from public records of one’s property, educational qualification and date of birth.
¤ Citizens often experience considerable difficulty in securing timely, reliable and quality services from government agencies.
¤ Citizen’s Charters are a means of solving the day to day problems which citizens experience while dealing with organisations providing public services.
¤ The Conservative party government under John Major was the first to introduce the Citizen’s Charter (1991).
¤ Tony Blair’s Labour government relaunched Citizen’s Charters in 1998 under the name “Services First”.
¤ The six principles of the Citizen’s Charter movement as originally framed were – quality, choice, standards, value, accountability and transparency.
¤ A Citizen’s Charter includes: vision and mission statements; identification of services; identification of levels; identification of client groups/ stakeholders/users; specification of time-frames for each service; specification of time-frames at each level; specification of service quality standards; specification of service delivery standards; and providing information about the grievance redressal procedures.
¤ Citizen’s Charters represent one application of the concept of reinventing government on the managerial model of successful private enterprises. In this model, the service providing department or its official is assigned the role of a manager. The citizens are treated as the customers of the department for that service. The service becomes the product which the department provides. The quality of service resembles the product standards of the business terminology.
¤ The service delivery model casts government servants in a different role as providers of services to people. They have to render service with sympathy and ensure public satisfaction.
¤ The Citizen’s Charter should not make promises which it cannot deliver.
¤ Steps in formulation of a Citizen’s Charter have been covered earlier.
¤ We have outlined the model guidelines for preparing the Citizen’s Charters.
¤ We have detailed earlier the Do’s and Don’ts for Implementing the Charters.
¤ We have given a model format for Citizen’s Charter. Students can refer to it for background and getting a feel of the charter. Its details are unimportant.
¤ There have been various evaluations of Citizen’s Charters. The findings have been generally negative. As we have outlined the findings in the form of points, there is no need to repeat them here.
¤ Government introduced a Bill titled the Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of Their Grievances.
¤ The main provisions of the Bill are:
(i) Publicauthoritiesshouldpublish a Citizen’sCharter
(ii) They have to specify the services and the quality of services to be provided.
(iii) The heads of department are responsible for disseminating and updating the citizen’s charter.
(iv) ‘Public authorities’ have been defined widely covering all public or public sponsored service providers.
(v) Information Facilitation Centres have to be set up by each public authority.
(vi) The Bill establishes Central and State Grievance Redressal Commissions.
(vii) The Commissioners would be appointed by the President (or by Governors in States) on the recommendation of a selection committee.
(viii) The Bill contains a mechanism for dealing with complaints.
(ix) There is a provision for three appeals.
(x) There are provisions for penalties.
(xi) In relation to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, an appeal against the decision of the Commissions shall lie with the Lokpal or the Lokayukta.
(xii) We have outlined some of the issues likely to arise from the system envisaged in the Bill.
PRACTICE QUESTIONS
1. What is a Citizen’s Charter? How will it help people? What is the relation between citizen’s charters and the idea of ‘reinventing government’?
2. What are the six principles underlying the original Charter which John Major introduced?
3. What are the main components of a Citizen’s Charter?
4. What are the steps involved in preparing a Citizen’s Charter?
5. What are do’s and don’ts important in preparing Citizen’s Charters?
6. What are the main findings of the various evaluations of Citizen’s Charters?
7. Outline the main provisions of the Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of Their Grievances Bill.
REFERENCES
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions Material on citizen’s charter on the website
Indian Institute of Public Administration Paper on citizen’s charter
