(Online Course) Pub Ad for IAS Mains: Chapter: 14 (Significant Issues in Individual Administration) - Value in Public Service (Ethics in Governance) (Paper -2)

Value in Public Service (Ethics in Governance)

Governance is admittedly the weak link in one quest for prosperity and equity. The six perceived governance quality measures, each an aggregate of a number of sub-measures are:

• Voice and Accountability

• Absence of political instability and violence

• Government effectiveness

• Reasonableness of the Regulatory burden

• Rule of law

• Absence of graft

Plato said:

“The punishment suffered by the wise who refuse to take part in the Government, is to suffer under the government of bad men”

When the ruler himself is right, The people naturally follow him in his right course, If governance is by men who are duelist, the governed will suffer.

Ethics is a set of standards that society place on itself and which helps guide behavior, choices and action.

Corruption is defined as “use of Public office for private gains” Corruption affects growth by raising costs at a given level of efficiency of operations, and/ or by reduction in efficiency.

Corruption is so deeply entrenched in the system that most people regard corruption as inimitable and any effort to fight is as futile.

There are 2, some what contrary, approaches in dealing with corruption and abuse of office.

1. Over emphasis on values and character. Many people lament the decline in values and the consequent rise in corruption. The Implicit assumptions that until values are restored, nothing much can be done to improve the conduct of human beings.

2. Based on the belief that most human beings are fundamentally decent & socially conscious, but there is always a small proportion of people, which can not reconcile individual goals with the good of society. Thus, those need to be controlled by institutional mechanisms.

In real would, both values and institution matter. Values are needed to secure as guiding stars, and they exist in abundance in our society. But values need to be sustained by institution to be durable and to serve as an example to others. Values without institutional support will soon be weakened and dissipated. Institutions provide the container, which gives shape and content to values.

In our society, corruption has been aggravated by 3 factors:

1. There is a colonial legacy of unchallenged authority & propensity to exercise power arbitrarily.

2. There is enormous asymmetry of power in our society nearly 90% of our people are in the unorganized sector. Nearly 70% of organized work force is employed with the government which comes with all trappings of power. Such asymmetry of power reduces societal pressure to conform to ethical behavour and makes it way to indulge in corruption.

3. As a conscious choice, the Indian state in the early decades after independence chose a set of policies whose unintended consequence was to put the citizen at the mercy of the state. E.g. over regulation, severe restriction on economic activity, monopoly of the government.

It is generally recognized that monopoly and discretion increase the propensity to corruption while competition and transparency reduce corruption. This has been dramatically witnessed in India in the wake of economic liberalization. As competition came in and choice expended, Corruption plummeted telephones, steel, cement, sugar and even 2 wheelers are among the many sectors which have seen enhanced supply and choice, reducing or even eliminating corruption. However, as the economy is freed from state controls, coercive corruption declines and collusing corruption tends to increase. The telecom sector in Indian is the perfect example.

Over centralisation also increases corruption. The more remotely power is exercised from the people, the greater is the distance between authority and Accountability. For the largest democracy, India probably has the smallest number of final decision makers. Local Government is not allowed to take root and power has been concentrated both horizontally and vertically in a few hands. The net results are weakened citizenry and mounting corruption.

The most important determinant of the integrity of a society or prevalence of corruption is the quality of politics.

Competition and decentralization certainly reduce corruption in certain sectors. But if the demand for corruptions fuelled by inexhaustible apetite for illegitimate funds in politics, then other avenues, perhaps more dangerous will be opened up.

What is needed with liberalisations corresponding political & governance reform to alter the incentives in politics & public office and to promote integrity and ethical conduct.

Ethics & Politics

Communalisation of politics ‘participation of criminals in the electoral process’ needs to be cheeked Political funding
- Minimal is (UK, US)
- Maximalist / election + all other activities (smeeden + Germany)
- Pautial reimbursement (France, South Korea)

A system for partial state funding should be introduced in order to reduce the scope of illegitimate and unnecessary funding of expenditure for elections.

Tightening of anti defection law: The issue of disqualification of members on grounds of defection should be decided by the president / governor on the advice of the Election Commission.

Disqualification from contesting elections: In such cases there is need for a fair reconciliation between the candidate’s right to contest and the community’s right to good representation.

Section 8 of the representation of the people Act, 1951 need to be amended to disqualify all person facing charges related to grave and heinous offenses and corruption with the modification suggested by the Election Commission.

Political parties have a responsibility to maintain proper Accounts of their income and expenditure and get them audited annually. The audited accounts should be available for information of the public.
Coalition and Ethics

The very diversity and complexity of the Indian electorate and over vibrant democracy has made coalition a familial aspect of our electoral process. In order to make coalition legitimate, it is necessary for the coalition partners to reach an understanding based on broad-based programmes to ensure that the goals of socio-economic development are met. Such an understanding needs to be translated in to a common minimum Programme (CMP) and announced either prior to the election on before it the formation of the coalition government.

Sometimes, the coalition partners change partnerships mid stream & new coalitions are formed, Primarily driven by opportunism and craving for power in utter disregard of the CMP.
Thus, the mandate given by the people becomes nonexistent, and the power given by the people is abused.

The constitution should be amended to ensure that if one or more parties in a coalition with a CMP realign midstream with one or more parties outside the coalition then members of that party of parties shall have to seek a fresh mandate from the electorate.

A collegium headed by the PM with the speaker of LS, the leader of opposition in LS, the Law Minister and the Deputy chairman of Rajya Sabha should make recommendation for the consideration of president for appointment of the CEC.

Expediting Disposal of Election Petitions: Special election tribunals should be constituted at the regional level under Art. 323B of the constitution to ensure speedy disposal of election petitions and disputes within a stipulated period of 6 months.

It is evident from Article 102(e) that parliament has been authorized to pass a law to include any further conditions for such disqualifications. In view of recent development leading to expulsion of some MPS, it may be desirable to comprehensively spell out other circumstances under which the Mps can be disqualified under Art. 102 (e) Similarly, the states may also legislate under Art. 198 (e).

The Nolan Committee, UK, outlined the following 7 principles on what constitutes ethical standards for holders of public office.

Selflessness : Decisions taken only of Public Interest.

Integrity: No financial or other obligation to outsiders that might influence their decision making.

Objectivity

Accountability: To public and must subject themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office

Openness: Should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the public interest clearly demands

Honesty: Should declare private interest and take steps to resolve conflicts.

Leadership

Government of India has prescribed a Code of conduct which is applicable to Ministers of both the Union & State Governments On careful perusal it is observed that the code is only a starting point for ensuring good conduct by Ministers. It is not comprehensive in its coverage & is more in a nature of list of prohibitions, it does not amount to a Code of ethics. It is therefore necessary that in addition to the Code of Conduct, there should be a Code of ethics to provide guidance on Low Ministers should uphold the highest standards of constitutional & ethical Conduct in the performance of their duties. (Important in Coalition).

• Dedicated units should be set up in the offices of the PM & the CM of the states to monitor the observance of the Code of Conduct.

• An annual report indicating violations should be submitted to the approprate legislature for consideration.

• It should be put in public domain.

• An office of ‘Ethics Commissioner’ may be constituted by each house of Parliament. This office, functioning under the Speaker / Chairman, would assist the Committee on Ethics in the discharge of its functions, & advise members, when required, & maintain necessary records. The same should be implemented in States.

Office of Profit:

- The law should be amended to define the office of Profit based on certain raised objective criteria.
Currently, the legislators are empowered to sanction public works & authorize expenditure of funds granted under MPLADs & MLALADs. Several party leaders & legislators feel the need for discretionary public funds at their disposal in order to quickly execute public works to satisfy the needs of their constituencies.

However, these schemes do seriously erode the notion of separation of powers, as the legislator directly becomes the executive.

The argument advanced that legislators do not directly handle public under these schemes, as these are under the Control of DM is flamed. In fact, no Minister directly handles public money. Even the officials do not personally handle cash, except the treasury. officials & disbursing officers. Making day-to-day decisions on expenditure often the legislature has approved the decision is a key executive function.

These schemes distort the MPs role in the federal system & divert funds which should have actually gone to PRIs.

• Schemes such as MPLADs & MLALADs should be abolished.

• MPs & MLAs should be declared as ‘Public Authorities’ under the RTI Act, except when they are discharging legislative functions.

• Code of ethics should be evolved for Civil Servants.

• A comprehensive & enforceable Code of Conduct should be prescribed for all professions, with statutory backing.

• The Supreme Court of India in 1997, unanimously adopted a charter called the ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’, generally known as the Code of Conduct for judges.

• A National Judicial Council should be constituted, in line with universally accepted principals where the appointment of members of judiciary should be by a collegium having representation of the executive, legislature & judiciary.

• Article 124 & Article 217 of the Constitution should be amended to provide for the National Judicial Council.

• A judge of the SC should be designated as ‘Judicial values Commissioner’ to enforce the Code of Conduct.

Legal Framework

In the pre-independence period, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was the main tool to Combat Corruption in Public Life. The Code had a chapter on ‘Offences by Public Servants’.

The 2nd World War created shortages which gave opportunity to Unscrupulous elements to exploit the situation leading to large scale corruption in public life. This situation continued even after the war. The lawmakers concerned about this menace, felt that drastic legislative measures need to be taken. Hence the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 was enacted to fight the evils of bribery & corruption.

The Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 consolidated the provisions of the 1947 act, criminal law Amendment Act, 1952 & some provisions of IPC. The salient features of this Act are:

• The term ‘Public Servant’ has been defined in the Act. The definition is broader than what existed in the IPC.

• ‘Public duty’ introduced in the Act.

• All cases under the act to be tried by Special Judges.

• Proceedings of the Court to be held on a day to day basis.

• However, experiences of past decade has shown that there is a need for classifying the following as officers under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

• Willful violation of oath of office.

• Abuse of authority unduly favouring or harming sum ore.

• Obstruction of justice.

• Squandering Public money.

Collusive Bribery

With the rapidly growing economy, cases of collusive corruption are on the increase & at times, these assume the magnitude of ‘serious economic officers’.

Section 24 of the Act, provides immunity from prosecution to a bribe-giver if he / she gives a statement in a court of law that he / she offered bribe. However, the Act does not differentiate between ‘Coercive & Collusive’ Corruption.

- Systemic reforms are very effective in combating coercive corruption. Besides, even though the general conviction rate in cases of corruption is low, it is observed that the rate of conviction in cases of coercive corruption is more than in collusive corruption.

The same is not true for ‘collusive’ corruption. Getting convictions in these cases is extremely difficult as both, the bribe-giver & the bribe-taker collude & are beneficiaries of the transaction. The negative impact of collusive Corruption is much more adverse & the Government and often the society, at large, are the sufferers.

• Section 7 of the prevention of corruption Act needs to be amended to provide for a special offence of ‘collusive bribery’.

• The punishment of all such cases of collusive bribery should be double that of other cases of bribery.

Sanction for Prosecution:

Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides that previous sanction of the competent authority is necessary before a Court takes cognizance of the officers defined under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 & 15 of the Act. The objective of this provision is to prevent harassment to honest public servants through malicious or vexations complaints.

• Prior sanction should not be necessary for prosecuting a public servant who has been trapped reed handed or in cases of possessing assets Disproportionate to the known sources of income.

• It needs to be ensured that sanctioning authorities are not summoned & instead the documents can be produced before the Courts by the appropriate authority.

• Law should be amended so that retired public servants can also get the same level of protection, as a serving public servants.

• The procedure for granting sanction, where the government, is the competent authority needs to be streamlined so that there is no delay in processing such cases.

Liability of Corrupt Public Servants:

- In addition to penalty in criminal cases, the law should provide that public servants who cause loss to the state or citizens by their corrupt acts should be made liable to make good the loss caused & in addition, be liable for damages. Adequate safeguards need to be provided so that bonafide mistakes should not end in award of such damages.

Speeding up Trials:

- Adjournment should be given only for compelling reasons.
- A legal provision needs to be introduced fixing a time limit for various stages of trial. This could be done by making amendments to life.

Corruption Involving the Private Sector:

According to Brike Payers Index 2006 of Transparency International, business from India, China & Russia had the greatest propensity to pay bribes.
- The Prevention of Corruption Act should be suitably amended to include in its purview private sector providers of public utility services.
- NGOs which receive substantial finding, should be covered under the PCA Act.
‘Substantial finding’ : 50% annual Costs / 1 Cr in any of Previous 3 years.

Confiscation of prosperities:

- The PCA has provisions for confiscation of assets of civil servatns in excess of their known sources of income. However, the provision has proved inadequate because such forfeiture is possible only on conviction for the relevant officers.
- Criminal Law amendment ordinance, 1944 is invoked for attachment of Properties. However, the process of attachment can only start after the Court has taken cognizance of offence.
- The Corrupt public servants (Forfeiture of property) Bill as suggested by the law Commission should be enacted without further delay.
- The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was passed in 1988. Unfortunately, in the last 22 years, rules have not been prescribed by the Government for the purpose of Section 5(1), with the result that the Government is not in a position to confiscate properties acquired by the real owner in the name of his Benamidars. Steps should be taken for immediate implementation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Protection to Whistleblowers:

There is a very close connection between the public servant’s willingness to disclose corruption in his organization & the protection given to him & his/her identity.
- Legislation should be enacted to provide protection to whistleblowers on the following lines proposed by law commission.
- Both Public & Corporate whistleblowers should be protected by ensuring confidentiality & anonymity, protection from victimisation in career & other administrative measures to prevent bodily harm & harassment.
- Such acts against a whistleblower should be criminal offence with substantial penalty & sentence.

Serious Economic Offences:

Economic Offences, called frauds in common parlance, have become a matter of concern because of an increasing trend both in terms of size & complexity. This worrying trend has its roots in the rapid pace at which the Indian Economy is growing & the financial sector is diversifying. Of late, economic offences, have been drawing more attention because these are being used to fund criminal & even terrorist activities.

The Mitra Committee Report submitted to the RBI pointed out that criminal jurisprudence in India based on proof beyond doubt was too weak an instrument to Central Bank frauds. It recommended a two pronged strategy.

- Systemic Reforms through strict implementation of Regulator’s Guidelines & obtaining compliance certificates.
- A punitive approach by defining scams as a serious offence with the burden of proof shifting to the accused & with a separate investigative authority for serious frauds, & special courts & prosecutors was recommended.

A Serious Frauds Investigation Office (SFIO) was set up in 2003 as a specialized multi-disciplinary organization to deal with Serious Cooperate Frauds. SFIO presently carries out investigation under the Companies Act.
- The recommendations of Mitra Committee should be strictly implemented.
- SFIO should be enabled to take up prosecution under the IPC in addition to violation of the Companies Act.

DSPE Act, 1946:-

As per the Section 6A of the Act necessitates Prior concurrence for Registration of Cases pertaining to offences alleged to have been committed under the PCA, 1988.

It has been argued that given the prevailing corruption ridden environment, there is danger of such a provision being misused to protect corrupt senior public servants.

The Counter argument is that officers at the level of Joint Secretaries & above have an important role in decision making in the Government Also while taking these decisions or rendering advice they should be able to do so without any fear or favour. Exposing these officers to frequent enquiries could have a demoralizing effect on them and discourage innovativeness & initiative.

- It would be appropriate if the power nests with an independent body, which can take an objective stand.
- CVC + in consultation with secretary
- CVC + Cabinet Secretary/PM.

Immunity Enjoyed by legislators:

The NCRWC recommended that Art 105(2) & 194 (2) may be amended to clarify that the immunity enjoyed by MPs & MLAs under parliamentary privileges should not cover corrupt acts committed by them in connection with their duties in the House on otherwise.

Article 311:

The procedure laid down in Art. 311, subject to the premises, is untended to:
- assure a measure of security of tenure to Government servants.
- Provide certain safeguards against arbitrary dismissal or removal of a Government servant on reduction to a lower rank.

Arguments for:

- Subjects the doctrine of pleasure contained in preceding Art 310 to certain safeguards.
- The safeguards are focussed and that the framers of the constitution were mindful of the rare eventualities in which even such minimal safeguards would not be necessary.
- The safeguard of an opportunity of being heard has been held to be a fundamental principle of natural justice. Even if the article is repealed, the opportunity can not be dispensed with.
- The requirement that only an authority which is the appointing authority on any other authority superior to it can impose a punishment appears reasonable as the Government follows a hierarchical structure- the obvious principle being that for positions having higher responsibility, the appointing authority is highly up in the hierarchy.
- If Article 310 stands without the procedural safeguards of Art 311, it is highly unlikely that the rules governing disciplinary proceedings & departmental inquiries can be dispensed with on the grounds that the President on the Governor have a right to dismiss an official from service without proving changes after due inquiry. In such a situation the only outcome would be an increase in litigation concerning service matters.
- A random check of the decided cases, under Art 311, from the index notes of the SC yields various rulings, which indicate that the Article is not an obstacle in dealing with delinquent public servant.
- It is augured that it is the rules governing disciplinary enquiries & not Art 311 itself, that are responsible for the delays in enquiry & even in removal of delinquent Government servants.

Arguments against:

It can be argued that if the decisions of the judiciary did not obviate the need to act against delinquent officials, then why retain the Article with its potential to profit the corrupt through any untended interpretation.

There are a number of decisions of the lower Court which have tied down the disciplinary authorities with technical detail where the procedure has become more important than the substance.
The position prevailing in India has to be viewed against the practice followed in other countries, where such punitive action is possible with a hearing permitted at the discretion of the appropriate authority, not as a matter of right.

The Indian Constitution, & part XIV thereof, was drafted at a time when, in the aftermath of partition, & post colonial administrative upheaval’s it was felt necessary to prescribe certain guarantees for the bureaucracy. In the present scenario, that protection does not seem quite necessary.

The recent growth of economy has ensured that Government is no longer the only significant source of employment. There is even debate of providing outcome oriented contractual appointment position of in Senior Civil Service.

Inflexibility & compartmentalization, created over decades within the bureaucratic structure, has been encouraged by the difficulty in even transferring staff who have rushed to courts against their transfer, this was certainly not the intention of the framers of the constitution.

The role of the Government as a model employee can not take away from the fact that public good must even ride individual right, certainly of the corrupt & inefficient public servant.

The protection required to be provided in terms of security of tenure on permanency in the Civil Service must not lead to a situation where delayed action becomes common reason for emboldening errant officials into committing acts against public interest.

The provision of Article 311 have given rise to a mass of judicial pronouncements which have led to much confusion & uncertainly in interpretation. If this Article is deleted, judicial pronouncements based on the Article would no longer be in force & binding.

The intention was clearly to embolden senior civil servants to render impartial & frank advice to the political executive without fear of retribution. But even for employees, parastatals organizations, this created a climate excessive security leading to loss in efficiency.

No government can be expected to dispense with the services of a Government servant in an arbitrary manner or without a proper enquiry. Such removal is not possible even in the private sector. Strictly, there should be no need for retaining Art 310, & legal safeguards may be provided through legislation under Art 309.

Art 311 & 310 of the constitution should be repealed.

Disciplinary Proceedings:

Minor penalties - 10 months 15 days
Major penalties - 16 months
(excluding the time required for consultation with UPSC)
A recent study of timeline of proceedings bring out 2 major facts:-
- There is no congruence between the time taken in completion of various stages & the schedule prescribed for their completion by CVC.
- The discovery of the Commission of a ‘misconduct’ is shockingly delayed.
- The proceedings needs to be made simple so that the proceedings could be completed within short time frame.
- Emphasis should be on documentary evidence rather than oral evidence.
- An appellate mechanism within the department itself.
- Imposition of major penalties should be recommended by a committee in order to ensure objectivity.

Statutory Reporting Obligations:-

Section 39 of the C&PC, 1973 makes it mandatory for any person to report to a magistrate an officer of the law any alleged corrupt offence by a public servant failing which he shall be liable for persecution.

Section 176 on 292 of the IPC deals with intentional omission to give information of offence by a person bound to inform.

Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also concerns aspects of the interests & integrity of information given in respect of offences. A police officer or a magistrate can not be compelled to disclose the source of information received by him with regard to Commission of Offence.

Inspite of all the legal provisions, the fear of potential whistleblowers being subjected to reprisals far outweigh the moral pressure of duty as a citizen.

A legislation must be passed protecting whistleblowers.

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK:-

Existing Institutions/Agencies:-

1. CVC: On recommendation of Santhanam Committee, Accorded Statutory Status in 2003 through CVC Act 2003 was set up in 1964.

2. CBI:- Anti - Corruption Division
   Economic offences Wing
   Special Crimes Division

3. Internal Vigilance Units:

Lok Pal:-

In some cases of corruption there may be collusion between the Ministers & the officers. Therefore, there should be an organic link between the Lokpal & CVC. It would enable sharing of information & prompt actions against all persons involved.
It should be a 3 member body. This would bring in expertise & insight of more than one person which would be essential for transparency & objectivity. The multimember characteristic. would render it more immune to any extraneous influence.

Q. Whether the office of PM should be brought under the Lok Pal?

Arguments For:

All Public servants should be accountable. In a democracy citizen is sovereign & all public servants hold officer to serve the citizen.

In constitutional theory, according to Westminster Model, the PM is the 1st among equals in a council of Ministers excersing collective responsibility. Therefore, whatever rules apply to other ministers, should apply to the PM also.

Arguments against:

It is the function of PM to lead & to Co-ordinate among the Ministers in framing of policies, decision making and execution of those policies & decisions. If the PM’s Conduct is open to formal scrutiny by extra-parliamentary authorities, then the governments viability is eroded & parliament’s supremacy is in jeopardy.

President Can’t dismiss the PM as long as he enjoys the support of the house, whereas the Ministers can be removed on the advice of PM. This scheme preserves the authority of PM. Any enquiry into a PM’s official conduct by any authority other than the parliament would severely undermine the PM’s capacity to lead the Government It would lead to serious failure of governance & be detrimental to public interest.

The authority of the PM, as long as he enjoys parliamentary support, has become synonymous with the nation’s dignity & prestige. A PM facing formal enquiry would cripple the government.
Parliament should be the only judge. We do not have a long impeachment process, a No confidence Motion is sufficient.

Parliament does not really sit in judgement over a Minister’s Conduct. It is the PM & CoM as a whole whose fate is determined by parliament’s will. And the PM does not have the time on energy to personally investigate the Conduct of a Minister, & therefore it is difficult for the PM to get objective assessment of the Minister’s official Conduct.

While the PM is yet another MP in Constitutional theory, political evolution transformed him into the leader of the nation.

- PM should not come under jurisdiction of Lokpal.
- CMs should
- Interaction with public
- Constitutional Status

Strengthening Investigation & Presecution:

- Responsibility for unsuccessful persecution should be fined.
- The State vigilance Commission/Lokayuktas may be empowered to supervise the prosecution of corruption related cases.
- The investigating agencies should be equipped with electronic investigating tools & capability to undertake such investigation. Systematic training of officers in this area is essential.
- Inter agency information exchange & mutual assistance among various enforcement & investigative agencies.

SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE:-

Citizen’s Initiative

A passive social environment which condones corruption, helps sustain it in the process.

Some successful civil society engagement.
- PIL by ADR leading to SC decision directing legislators to disclose their assets.
- Jan Sunmai by MKSS.
- Campaign for Citizen Charters by PRAJA of Mumbai.

Through such initiatives come from the society, the Government can create an environment whereby the citizen’s groups can effectively participate in its efforts to root out corruption. Some measures to facilitate this:
- Inviting Civil society organization to oversee Government programmes
- Establishing & disseminating service standards.
- Citizen’s charters should be made effective by stipulating the service levels & also the remedy if these service levels are not met.
- Reward schemes should be introduced to incentivise citizen’s initiative.
- School awareness programmes should be introduced, highlighting the important of ethics & how corruption can be combated.
- There is need for legislation on the lines of the US False Claims Act, which will make it possible for interested citizens & Civil Society groups to seek legal relief for the recovery of the proceeds of corruption & claim a share.

Role of Media:

The Collation of reports appearing in different sections of the media & their follow up should be an integral part of complaints monitoring mechanisms in all public offices.

It is necessary to evolve norms & practices that all allegations would be duly screened, & the persons against whom such allegations are made is given a fair chance to put forth his version.

Government agencies should disclose details about corruption cases regularly.

Social Audit:

Operational guidelines of all developmental schemes & citizen centric programmes should provide for a social audit mechanisms.

SYSTEMIC REFORMS:

Fighting corruption through yet another anti corruption measure appear to have little impact, act is often politically expedient way of reacting to pressures to do something about corruption, substituting for the need for fundamental & systemic governance reforms.

‘Monopoly + Discretion- Accountability = Corruption’

An optimum mix of punitive & preventive measures. Punitive measures act as a deterrent whereas preventive measures reduce opportunities by making systems transparent, increasing accountability, reducing discretion, rationalizing procedures etc.

Some of the initiatives taken in the part:-
- Railway Passenger Bookings.
- e-Cops (Punjab) - online registration & tracking of complaints
- Rural Kiosks/ Rural service Delivery points (Andhra Pradesh)
- Each Minister / Department may undertake an immediate exercise to identify areas where the existing ‘monopoly of functions’ can be tempered with competition.
- Some centrally sponsored schemes could be restructured so as to provide incentives to states that take steps to promote competition in service delivery.

Simplifying Transactions:

Incidence & Intensity of Corruption & Complicity of Work
- Conventional practices like ‘territorial’ distribution of work tend to cause overcrowding & consequent motivation to ‘jump’ quees.
- Multiplicity of layers. Whenever abuse of authority is noted, another layer of administration is added in hope that this would act as a check. It, usually, adds to delays & corruption without solving the problem.
- Single Window clearance should be adopted.

IT

Some successful programmes:-
- Gyandoot, MP (Village Community incurred Rs. 75,000 Cost)
- Bhoomi Project, Karnataka (Computerised land records)
- Before any introduction of IT is made, it is necessary that the existing procedures are properly re-engineered & made computer adaptable.
- There have been several successes in introduction of e-governance. But the greatest challenge has been their replicability & up-scaling
- Capability of the personnel should be built.
- On Job training / Training in existing compuerized departments.

Integrity Pacts:

The term refers to an agreement between the public agency involved in procuring goods & services and the bidder for a public contract to the effect that the bidders have not paid & shall not pay any illegal gratification to secure the contract in question.
- ONGC, Defence Ministry have adopted it.
- The reluctance seems to be on Account of uncertainty about the place of such pacts in our legal framework. Task force should be constituted for the same.

Supervision & Reducing Discretion:

- Committees rather than Individual.
- If an officer is caught for corruption, the superior should explain why he was given an ‘Integrity Certificate’.

Monitoring Complaints:-

- All offices having large public interface should have an online complaint tracking system. It could be outsourced whenever possible.
- Eternal, periodic mechanisms of ‘audit’ of complaints.
- Risk profiling of officers & jobs should be done.
- Civil Servants, who identify corruption, should be rewarded.
- A national database containing the details of all corruption cases at all levels should be created, This database could be in public domain & should be updated regularly.

International Co-operation:-

Corruption transcends national boundaries. In particular, strengthening of provisions relating to the prevention of laundering of the proceeds of Corruption & safeguards to prevent offshore financial centres from harboring the proceeds are essential steps to Control Corruption.

- UN Declaration against Corruption (Public & Private), 1996
- International Code of Conduct for public officials
- UN convention against corruption, 2003.

Recommendation of the pay Commission on the relationship between Civil Servants & Political Executive.

Detailed guidelines should be formulated & published regarding Transfer policy,

- Minimum tenure; longer tenure should be linked to performance & continued availability of certain specialized skills.
- Instrument of transfer should not be allowed to be misused either by Bureaucrats themselves or politicians in power.
- Ministers should not be allowed to interfere in the day to day functioning of CS. Also the Civil Servants should not look up to Minister for informal instruction regarding decisions.

Conclusion:

The raison d’etre of vigilance activity is not to reduce but to enhance the level of managerial efficiency & effectiveness in the organization, All this, in turn, will lead to greater empowerment of the people - the core need of a Vibrant democracy.

  Go Back To Main Page