Honest officer’s dilemma
In government departments, which have a reputation for corruption, honest officers are generally sidelined and are not offered posts that are considered ‘juicy’
With the daily exposé of corruption in our media, we have all become blasé about corruption in every sector of our lives. Nevertheless, the recent news about a senior IAS officer and Protector General of Emigrants under the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs in New Delhi, Jagadananda Panda, and four members of his family who were found dead in their native village in Orissa’s Bargarh district, was shocking.
The news also mentioned a suicide note found in a briefcase in the house in Deogana where the bodies were found. In that note, Panda wrote: “I am innocent. My simplicity betrayed me.”
The CBI’s anti-corruption wing recently arrested the local Protector of Emigrants R Sekar for allegedly taking bribes to send thousands of people overseas. Sekar had claimed in court that he had shared the spoils with his boss Panda.
We do not know the truth and the correct facts in the case. In our system, it will be years before the guilty are punished. We also do not know whether Panda was really honest. Assuming that he was honest, as claimed by him in his suicide note, his case raises a rarely discussed aspect of corruption in government departments. This is the dilemma faced by honest officers in departments which are notoriously corrupt. In such departments, honest officers feel like pickpockets in a nudist colony. They are generally sidelined and are not placed in posts which are considered juicy or wet. Nevertheless, there are a significant number of honest officers in such departments also and they sometimes end up in key critical positions of power. How are they to function?
The first point to remember is that an honest officer, who is the head of an organisation or in a key position of authority, cannot claim to be innocent. The minimum he can do is to quickly learn the ground realities and to initiate immediate action to plug loopholes and modify procedures which are exploited by corrupt officials. A head of the department has the power to modify procedures to reduce corruption, or at least move the government for this purpose.
The most obvious step is to bring greater transparency to the system and make it accessible to citizens and subordinates. Instead of depending only on files that come his way, he must try to get a grip of the ground reality by practising what is called management by walking about.
A practice of recording in real time, the detailed reasons for every critical decision taken, would also be very useful. Many honest officers are grieved for taking the right decisions but not recording the reasons fully. Later on, situations may develop which will make the decision appear colourable and smelling of corruption. Such elementary steps can help an honest officer function even in a corrupt department without sullying his reputation.
As Chief Vigilance Commissioner, from 1998 to 2002, I had come across rumours about corruption in the organisation for protection of emigrants which was then under the ministry of labour. It was a typical case of a government department started with a good intention becoming totally counterproductive. This office was set up with the objective of protecting Indian labourers – like plumbers and carpenters – whose services were in great demand in the Middle East and who were likely to be exploited by unscrupulous middlemen both in India and abroad. In practice, the organisation itself apparently became a cesspool of corruption.
In fact, there is a strong case for abolishing such departments. There will be at least three benefits. To begin with, the wastage of taxpayer’s money in running the organisation will be avoided. Secondly, corruption arising from the department would be eliminated. Thirdly, the harassment to citizens – in this case the emigrating labour – would be removed.
Unfortunately, eliminating corruption and effecting a real economy in government departments are only slogans so far as governments are concerned. If the case of Panda makes the decision makers in government to sit up and take action, his death will not have been in vain.
Unfortunately, eliminating corruption in government departments is restricted to slogans alone
In the last decade, N Vittal, the former CVC, emerged as the voice of our collective conscience. This is his weekly take on public life in India
|