Many inefficient but obliging officers will continue in service beyond 20 years as stipulated by the Commission since they know the art of keeping their masters in good humour

 Opinion will be divided on the recommendation that if the performance of a government servant is found unsatisfactory, he or she will be declared unfit after 20 years in service, the government servant should be  compulsorily retired.It is not clear whether such civil servants after 20 years of service will be entitled to post retirement benefits. Who will review performance of such officers after they have served the government for two decades?

Although the intention of the Commission is laudable to improve functioning of the bureaucrats, it will not be wise to leave them in the lurch after 20 years on the recommendation of the committee which may not always be comprising people who themselves are not competent  to sit on the judgment and  may be biased against some officials. The government should be cautious in accepting the recommendation without deliberating this in depth.    

The Commission’s other recommendation relates to new appointments. New appointments should be provided for 20 years and future continuation in government should be decided once he or she is found fit for the job.

Another important recommendation is regarding new appointments to be made by the government. Such recruitments should initially be for 20 years. Further continuance in service should be decided once he or she is found suitable for the assignment.

The Report has also recommended appraisal of performance round the year and that provisions for detailed work plan and a mid-year review on regular basis should be in place for all services. Suggesting changes in the present Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for government employees, the Commission says the annual performance agreements should be signed between the Minister of the concerned Department and the Secretary or head of the Department providing physical and verifiable details of the work to be done during a financial year. The actual performance should be assessed by a third party.

Yes, one will agree with the Commission that there is need for motivating government employees for improving their service and this should be recognized. How can this be achieved? Can a government servant afford to do anything against the wishes of his or her departmental heads or the ministers? What will be the consequences if a government servant refuses to do anything illegal and without written order of her or his immediate and concerned superiors? The Commission should have taken this into consideration to protect honest and efficient officers. What is apprehended is that many inefficient but obliging government officers will continue in service beyond 20 years as stipulated by the Commission since they know the art of keeping their masters in good humour. The former Chief Minister of an important southern state is not expected to be unaware of the presence of such people in the Central and state administrations as well as in pubic and private sectors. It is regretted that he has overlooked this vicious circle promoted by vested interests.

However, it is not a bad suggestion that the performance of the civil servants should be periodically reviewed and the age limit of 21 to 25 years should be fixed for appearing in civil service examinations for general candidates and 21 to 29 should be the upper age limit for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. As stated earlier, it is a good intention to improve the functioning of the bureaucracy but what should be ensured is that honest, hardworking and efficient government servants should be provided more legal and constitutional protection. ARC should have insisted on providing such legal and constitutional safeguards to the upright officials. 

Pranab Kumar Chakravarty