UdayKumar

The Indian Express investigation of 4th November reports that the ECI has reversed almost every SIR-related direction questioned by its own two Election Commissioners. Changes concerning Form 6, hearings, documentation and powers of field officers have followed. Corrections are welcome. But why were the objections not addressed earlier? Who accounts for the hardship caused to voters? Three questions arise: 1.Who initiated these directions, and at what level was their impact examined and approved? 2.What do the files record about objections raised, decisions taken and instructions given for drafting and issuing the orders? 3.If established procedures were followed, why were so many directions subsequently reversed? If they were not, how were the original orders authorised? ECI’s portal says how the officers who form the Secretariat are taken on deputation or appointed by the Commission. Serving IAS and Central Civil Service officers remain subject to the applicable Conduct Rules, even when working in constitutional bodies. Those rules apply to all serving government officers regardless of the place of official duty. Administrative accountability starts with officers who drafted or issued the orders and extends through the entire chain of decision-making to the authority that approved the issue of orders on file. Because directions affecting electoral procedures must ultimately be communicated in writing. The relevant files, approvals, correspondence and issued orders should therefore make it possible to reconstruct how the decisions originated, were modified and finally communicated. If the records are incomplete or unavailable, that too calls for an explanation. The ECI should make the relevant decision records available for scrutiny and if necessary, an appropriate independent inquiry should examine the entire sequence. Such an examination need not be prolonged if the records are properly maintained. The manual of office procedure lays down how files have to be maintained and recepit and dispatch recorded in registers maintained by the personal staff of officers and by the concerned sections. Secretariat procedures are often dismissed as bureaucratic red tape. Recorded decision-making is not red tape. It is an essential safeguard of institutional accountability. The ECI files would show precisely how responsibility was exercised at each level.

WHAT SHOULD A SECRETARY REALLY BE DOING? Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan’s observations, reported in The Economic Times, about Secretaries who sit on files, avoid decisions, call unnecessary late meetings and treat subordinates poorly, deserve attention. His cartoons depicting 12 varieties of bureaucratic behaviour must have raised a few smiles. I hope the media will share them soon. But it is his questioning of an appraisal system in which almost everyone scores close to 10 out of 10 that identifies a much more serious problem. I would add three varieties to the Cabinet Secretary’s list: 1.The window dressers, who excel at presentations, impressive statistics and claims of achievement, without checking whether anything has actually improved on the ground. 2.The ever-smiling, ever-agreeable “Sab badhiya hai, Sir” Secretaries, who seldom question, suggest or disagree. 3.The sycophants, who seek political blessings through extravagant praise, including laudatory articles and entire book chapters about those in power. Somanathan’s observations reminded me of a Defence Secretary under whom I worked many years ago. S.M. Ghosh, a 1951-batch IAS officer of the Gujarat cadre, took an interest in my development although I was a mere Director in the Ministry of Defence. Once a fortnight, he would call me for a reflective 15–20 minute conversation. I learnt the word “perspicacious” from him. He said that was the key quality he looked for in a senior officer. I was soon to be promoted as JS. One day I asked why his desk was invariably empty. Where were all the files? His reply was memorable. “I’m not here to clear files. Only exceptions to established systems should come to me. I judge officers by the number of files they send up.” He explained that his job was to think ahead, anticipate problems, devise better ways of working and change systems that needed changing. Senior officers were expected to implement what he thought needed change. He judged them by the results which he checked out on his own. Ghosh was far from popular, but was certainly effective. I never forgot what he said. Having watched dozens of Secretaries as a Director, a JS , an AS and eventually my colleague Secretaries, I can say that a good Secretary starts his innings by identifying what needs changing; he initiates the improvements; he follows up; and finally he checks whether results are showing on the ground . An outstanding grade given by him should be based on evidence of improvements initiated, results achieved and systems strengthened—not merely a record of instructions faithfully carried out. S.M. Ghosh’s empty desk was not evidence of inactivity. It reflected his understanding of what a Secretary was appointed to do. THE TEST IS NOT HOW MANY FILES A SECRETARY CLEARS, BUT WHAT HE CHANGES, WHAT IMPROVES AND WHAT CONTINUES TO WORK AFTER HE LEAVES.