GS4 PYQ (Mains Answer Writing): Honesty in Civil Services | UPSC Mains: Ethics, Integrity & Aptitude PDF Download

Honesty and uprightness are the hallmarks of civil servants. Civil servants possessing these qualities are considered as a backbone of any strong organizations. In the line of duty, they take various decisions, at time some become bonafide mistakes. As long as such decisions, are not taken intentionally and do not benefit personally, the officer cannot be said to be guilty. Though such decisions may, at times, lead to unforeseen adverse consequences in the long term. In the recent past, a few instances have surfaced wherein civil servants have been implicated for bonafide mistakes.
They have often been prosecuted and even imprisoned. These instances have greatly rattled the moral fiber of the civil servants. How does this trend affect the functioning of civil services? What measures can be taken to ensure that honest civil servants are not implicated for bonafide mistakes on their part? Justify your answer. (UPSC MAINS GS4)

The raison d’être of vigilance activity is not to reduce but to enhance the level of managerial efficiency and effectiveness in the organization. Risk-taking should form part of government functioning. Every loss caused to the organization, either in pecuniary or no pecuniary terms, need not necessarily become the subject matter of a vigilance inquiry. 

• One possible test for determining the bona-fides could be whether a person of common prudence working within the ambit of the prescribed rules, regulations and instructions, would have taken the decision in the prevailing circumstances in the commercial/ operational interests of the organization. 
• Even more than in government, managerial decision-making in public sector undertakings and day-to-day commercial decisions in public sector banks offers considerable scope for genuine mistakes being committed which could possibly raise questions about the bona-fides of the decision-maker. Civil servants take decisions based on bounded rationality. Even when intention is good and in keeping with values of public services, outcome cannot be completely predicted. 
• There are many factors that interact in complicated ways to produce an outcome. For instance, if an order is executed to ban smoking of tobacco and drinking of alcohol and people switch to abuse of prohibited cough syrups and drug menace spreads, one cannot hold the bureaucrats guilty for it. There is no moral issue but an issue of administrative foresightedness. A person cannot be punished for not being wise enough. 
• Deontological approach also says that since outcome cannot be predicted, one’s action can only be judged based on intent. However, since there is a tangible loss to public, an accounting should always be done, mistakes identified and lessons learnt for future. Before this, there must be a stringent enquiry to know how much application of mind took place before decision was taken and whether there was wilful ignorance. 
• It is generally assumed by the investigating agencies that (1) a decision should be wrong for there to be corruption, and (2) it is easier to involve everyone in the chain of decision making and allege ‘conspiracy’ than to take pains to find out the individuals who are actually involved. It is often overlooked that a corruption can take place even when the decisions are correct and that it also takes place at specific points inside and outside the system. 
• This entrenched approach to investigation has led to conviction rates being dismally low, honest functionaries getting demoralized and dishonest ones often going scot free. How does this trend affect the functioning of civil services? It basically discourages decision making. If one is always vulnerable about being hold guilty for an outcome which one can anyway not predict totally, one would prefer to play safe, defend status quo and take decisions based on precedents. 
• When situations demand innovation and out of box thinking for which law is silent or ambiguous, immediate action is needed, precedents don’t exist, one is left confused what to do. Taking risk is only way out. What can only be ensured that such risks are taken is spirit of public service with best application of intelligence and experience. Since it is done in public interest without personal benefits, an individual should not be at least punished for adverse outcomes. This calculated risk in right spirit should not be equated with adventurism like Mao’s Cultural Revolution. 
• This also goes in tandem with corrupt civil servants going Scott-free. This is a deadly combination which breaks the moral fiber of the system. This gives a signpost to the new entrants that honesty is not cherish able virtue. 

What measures can be taken to ensure that honest civil servants are not implicated for bonafide mistakes on their part? 

• Every allegation of corruption received through complaints or from sources cultivated by the investigating agency against a public servant must be examined in depth at the initial stage itself before initiating any enquiry. Every such allegation must be analyzed to assess whether the allegation is specific, whether it is credible and whether it is verifiable. 
• Only when an allegation meets the requirements of these criteria, should it be recommended for verification, and the verification must be taken up after obtaining approval of the competent authority. 
• The levels of competent authorities for authorizing verifications/enquiries must be fixed in the anti- corruption agencies for different levels of suspect officers In matters relating to allegations of corruption, open enquiries should not be taken up straightaway on the basis of complaints/source information. 
• When verification/secret enquiries are approved, it should be ensured that secrecy of such verifications is maintained and the verifications are done in such a manner that neither the suspect officer nor anybody else comes to know about it. Such secrecy is essential not only to protect the reputation of innocent and honest officials but also to ensure the effectiveness of an open criminal investigation. 
• Such secrecy of verification / enquiry will ensure that in case the allegations are found to be incorrect, the matter can be closed without anyone having come to know of it. The Inquiry/Verification Officers should be in a position to appreciate the sensitivities involved in handling allegations of corruption. 
• The evaluation of the results of verification/enquiries should be done in a competent and just manner. Much injustice can occur due to faulty evaluation of the facts and the evidence collected in support of such facts. Personnel handling this task should not only be competent and honest but also impartial and imbued with a sense of justice. 
• Whenever an Inquiry Officer requires to consult an expert to understand technical /complex issues, he can do so, but the essential requirement of proper application of mind has to take place at every stage to ensure that no injustice is caused to the honest and the innocent. 
• Capacity building in the anti-corruption agencies should be assured through training and by associating the required experts during enquiries/ investigations. Capacity building among public servants who are expected to take commercial / financial decisions should be built through suitable training programmes. 
• The supervisory officers in the investigating agencies should ensure that only those public servants are prosecuted against whom the evidence is strong. 
• There should be profiling of officers. The capabilities, professional competence, integrity and reputation of every government servant must be charted out and brought on record. Before proceeding against any government servant, reference should be made to the profile of the government servant concerned. 
• A special investigation unit should be attached to the proposed Lokpal (Rashtriya Lokayukta)/ State Lokayuktas/Vigilance Commission, to investigate allegations of corruption against investigative agencies. This unit should be multi-disciplinary and should also investigate cases of allegations of harassment against the investigating agency. Similar units should also be set up in states.