The decision to arrest a bureaucrat is normally taken at the level of the CBI Director who thinks many times over before agreeing to this course of action.
There is no question that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) must conduct a credible and fair investigation into the various corruption cases it has taken up in Andhra Pradesh, as stated by S. Nagesh Kumar in The Hindu (“Why are politicians not being investigated, IAS officials ask,” February 10, 2012). Bureaucrats in Andhra Pradesh are agitated over the recent arrest of two of their colleagues by the CBI. What I want to point out is that it gives the investigating agency no pleasure to go after its colleagues in the administrative service, and if it has taken this extreme step, it must be for good reason.
One official, Home Secretary B.P. Acharya, is in trouble in connection with the Emaar Properties case. The other, Y. Srilakshmi, is suspected for misconduct in the Obulapuram Mining case. Two others, L.V. Subramanyam and K.V. Rao, figure in the CBI charge sheet filed in the Emaar case.
Ulitimate sufferer
The State IAS Officers' Association has accused the CBI of violating established procedure. Officers are upset at being hauled up for the misdeeds of their Ministers. None of this is conducive to good administration. Several States, including Tamil Nadu, have gone through a similar phase in the past. The ultimate sufferer is the common man, who is even otherwise dissatisfied with the service he receives from the bureaucracy.
The complaint by Andhra Pradesh bureaucrats that the CBI is arbitrary in dealing with senior civil servants is only half true. Undeniably, the investigating agency is neither omniscient nor infallible. It has certainly committed mistakes in the past. It is liable to lapse into wrongful action in the future as well.
According to my information, Home Secretary Acharya was arrested only at an advanced stage of the investigation and not before, however much it may have been warranted. In any case, each case has its own priorities.
Where the progress of an investigation is dependent mainly on the evidence purely within the knowledge of a Secretary to Government, the latter's arrest may become unavoidable. This is painful, but a necessary step forward in a crucial investigation. It does not please the CBI Director or his investigating officer to subject a senior bureaucrat to the humiliation of an arrest. A decision is normally taken at the level of Director, who thinks many times over, before agreeing to this course of action. The CBI is fully conscious that it is easy to destroy a reputation than build one over decades.
The arrests once again bring to focus the contentious subject of minister-civil servant relationship. There is an impression in that State that some senior bureaucrats were intimidated into falling in line with highly irregular demands from the political executive and have now been sacrificed. This demoralisation within the IAS is true of many States where the situation is even worse. Why is this so? Until about a decade or two ago, the penalty for not obliging a capricious and dishonest minister was an unwelcome transfer from one job to another or from one location to another, a “Siberian posting,” as my mentor, the venerable V.R. Lakshminarayan once put it so colourfully. That chill seems clement compared to the danger these days of physical harm to the officer who puts his foot down on an illegal request, and his family too. This miasmic atmosphere is enough to turn away many a talented young man or woman from even considering a career in the civil services.
Honesty pays
But it is also true that senior officers are more than willing to oblige a dishonest minister. This pliability is traced to their greed or a desire to enlarge their career prospects. As the Shah Commission so effectively put it: “Where they were only required to bend, they actually crawled!” This is an apt description for more than a handful of civil servants now. As long as such a component remains within the higher bureaucracy, a minister looking to line his pocket would prefer a pliable secretary to a professional and no-nonsense civil servant. There is a rumour that this is precisely what A. Raja did. If you are so pliant as to consciously commit an act of impropriety, you will have to pay the penalty subsequently. Whenever a young IAS or IPS officer comes to me, the advice I always give is that the written word — a contemporaneous noting on the file — can hardly be ignored by the CBI or any other investigating agency. It is therefore necessary to record what one thinks is right and stand by it when it is reviewed several years later. The advantage is if you are honest you don't have to remember what you did. If you are not, you will have to remember why you took a particular line. The CBI will not hang you if you have been only guilty of a bona fide mistake. But it will, if you have been dishonest and unprofessional in pandering to the designs of a rapacious minister.
In the ultimate analysis, I realise how difficult it is to be courageous and honest these days, when venality rules the corridors of government. A few years of pain resulting from an honest course of action is however very much preferable to the ignominy of criminal action for having been party to dishonesty. This is about the only practical way of surviving in the civil service in our country. This is certainly not something that will earn you mundane success, but will definitely fetch you peace of mind and an image that everyone around you will talk about for long years, and one you will yourself treasure forever.
(The writer is a former CBI Director)
Keywords: Andhra IAS officers, CBI, Emaar case
Comments:
If the entire bunch of IAS Officers / majority of them say 'No' to a dishonest politician, what can be done? The physical threat is not there only for IAS Officers. It is also there for Judges and many others. Inspite of that, we have had judges giving judgements against very powerful politicians and corporates. One should not take up IAS Service if they have the tendency to bend and crawl. If they bend and crawl, they should be ready for the associated ignominy, if caught.
The view that politicians choose policies and bureaucrats implement them is too simplistic; in many cases bureaucrats do much more than executing either de jure or de facto.Policies are chosen and implemented by both elected representatives and non-elected bureaucrats. Then the basic questions are; 1. What criteria should guide the allocation of responsibilities amongst politicians and bureaucrats? And 2. What is the socially optimal allocation of tasks between these two types of policymakers? Many economists have emphasized the argument in favor of delegation of policy to a non-elected bureaucrat.Politicians are more efficient for tasks that do not involve too much specific technical ability. Then logic how each is held accountable. Politicians are held accountable at the elections, for how they have pleased the voters. Top level bureaucrats are accountable to their professional peers or to the public at large, for how they have fulfilled the goals of their organization. Bureaucrats want to signal their competence for career concerns and politicians for re-election purposes. Bureaucrats are likely to be better than politicians if the criteria for good performance are stable over time and if good performance requires special abilities and some technical expertise. Most politicians are opportunistic. Voters would hold the politician accountable.
RK Raghavan usually takes a middle path. No wonder he has reportedly let Modi off the hook. Here too, as is his wont, he is soft on the IAS while lapsing into general homilies about how to be a honest civil servant instead of condemning the IAS trade unionism in no unequivocal language. It is precisely this kind of TU strong arm tactics by the IAS in Kerala when they stormed into the CM's room to demand promotion of PJ Thomas as Chief Secretary years ago, resulted in the notorious fiasco called the "going... going ...gone" CVC . The crux of the issue is if you want a honest as well as performing bureaucracy the IAS should be abolished as Narayanamurthy of INFOSYS said not very long ago during the CWG exposes. . .
The likes of RK Raghavan and V R Lakshminarayanan are dwindling day-
by-day in All INDIA Services.Honesty has become a policy of
expediency. Politicization of Services is another serious bane to be
cured.
Yes, Sh Raghavan your observation that "Undeniably, the investigating agency is neither omniscient nor infallible. It has certainly committed mistakes in the past. It is liable to lapse into wrongful action in the future as well." is an admission that all is not well in the CBI.
Perhaps, you are aware of the falling standards of Investigation and lack of professionalism that have crept in over the past few years.An SP calls a critical witness to his Office ostensibly to refresh his memory.In the court next day it is so revealed by the witness.Since when was this way of doing things allowed.The manipulation of evidence and statements in trap cases is an area of significance.I do not wish to further elaborate.
We need to think more about the role of the CBI with reference to ground realities.
The Organisation has no way to capture it's Institutional Memory.