The Centre’s decision to transfer 1994-batch Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Sanjeev Khirwar and his wife Rinku Dhugga, also an IAS, to Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh respectively on Thursday did not surprise the bureaucratic fraternity.
Multiple serving and retired bureaucrats told News18 that “some action” was expected from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) – the authority controlling the Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram and Union Territories (AGMUT) cadre – or the Delhi government, after an Indian Express report exposed how athletes were asked to leave the Delhi government-run Thyagraj Stadium early for the IAS couple to walk their dog in the evening.
They, however, were divided over terming the transfers a punishment— even as the prompt MHA order in the aftermath of the news report made it appear as one — and most felt it was a “strong message” from the government to the bureaucrats.
‘EACH POST IS IMPORTANT’
A former Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) secretary told News18 that the transfers cannot be considered a punishment, even though the incident, if correct, was an undue abuse of authority.
“For a punishment to be meted out, there has to be an inquiry, which is a long-drawn process and can take up to a year or more, which was not the case here. In this instance, the government wanted to send out a quick and strong message to the bureaucrats, some of whom still retain the colonial mindset,” he said.
Talking about the transfers to border locations, the former bureaucrat said the only thing that may look amiss is the postings of the IAS couple at different locations.
“There is no rule mandating that they will have to be posted in the same location, but the government often tries to keep a couple together. The officers can always give a representation to the government if they are unhappy with the postings,” he said.
Anil Swarup, a former secretary in the Government of India told News18 that there is no such thing as punishment posting for the IAS. “Each post is important,” he said.
Swarup, who has written several books on civil servants and has been vocal on bureaucracy issues, said, “I have visited Ladakh twice and I found so much can be done in that region. So why call it a punishment posting,” he asked.
THE CONDUCT RULES
A senior bureaucrat currently serving in his state cadre said the government has not issued a show-cause notice to him citing violation of conduct rules, so it is not a punishment posting.
Rule 3 (1) of the All India Services Conduct Rules, 1968, states that every member of the service shall maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a member of the service. This includes maintaining high ethical standards, integrity, honesty, political neutrality, responsiveness to the public as well as courtesy and good behavior to the public, among others.
The officer quoted above said, Khirwar’s alleged action, if true, may at maximum fall under Rule 3 (1) of the conduct rules, if the rule is interpreted liberally.
“However, transfer is not a punishment under any rule. Legally, it is a routine administrative procedure,” the officer said.
BORDER STATES: ‘LESS PREFERRED POSTING’
Former finance secretary Arvind Mayaram told News18 that transfers, per se, are not punishment, but it is the context that makes it a punishment.
“If the latest transfers were done on the basis of a newspaper report, and the transfer orders were issued within a short duration without proper inquiry, then it can be construed as a punishment.
There is a presumption that a bureaucrat must be wrong. In the present case, it was important to be ascertained that whether the IAS officer asked the stadium to be shut at 7pm or if the stadiums were indeed to shut at 7pm,” he said.
“It is important to step back a little and not subject a person to media trials,” he said.
A second senior IAS officer in the central government said one reason why the recent order may seem like a punishment posting is because border states and UTs are typically less-preferred locations for bureaucrats.
“Barring those who belong to the states, home states are the most preferred locations, while border states in the north or north-east are less preferred during cadre allocations. Many of those who are allocated border states also try to come to Delhi on central deputation often on reaching a certain seniority and if the states permit,” the officer said.
Khirwar, who was the principal secretary (revenue), has been serving in the Delhi government for the past several years and was known to be close to the Arvind Kejriwal government. All district magistrates (DMs) and sub-district magistrates (SDMs) in the national capital were reporting to the senior bureaucrat. Technically, stadiums and their administration did not come under Khirwar, but under the education department.
Sources in the Delhi government told News18 that Khirwar was also a top contender for the position of New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) chairman. On Friday, 1990-batch IAS officer Bhupinder Singh Bhalla, serving as the additional chief secretary in Delhi government, was appointed the NDMC chairman by the MHA.
A senior Delhi government official said that while transfers are routine administrative procedures, this MHA order can be seen as a punishment positing because of three reasons.
“One is the incident and the subsequent transfers harmed his reputation as a bureaucrat. Second, he lost out on the NDMC chairman position and third, he was separated from his family.”
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment