West Bengal is once again in news. And, yet again for wrong reasons. No, it is not on account of Yaas Cyclone that was quite well managed by the State Government but on account of the ‘tornado’ that followed Yaas. There were indeed many wrongs committed. And, by both the parties.

The Prime Minister was on an official visit to West Bengal to assess the damage caused by Yaas but what happened during the course of the visit caused, or has the potential to cause, the greater damage to the ethos of administration and propriety. Mamata Bannerjee should have been there on time to receive the Prime Minister. That is the protocol and it should have been honoured despite the political relationship between the two protagonists of this drama. She should have also attended the meeting convened by the PM to discuss the fallout of Yaas. But what was the leader of the opposition doing in an official meeting? This too was a breach of protocol. Knowing the political sensitivity, he shouldn’t have been a part of the discussion. These are political issues and require a bit of sagacity on the part of both parties.

What is worse is that a civil servant got caught in the political cross-fire. Alapan Bandhopadhyay, the State Chief Secretary was with the Chief Minister. Hence, he too wasn’t present to receive the PM when he arrived. This too is a breach of protocol. However, except persuasively advising the CM to receive the PM and requesting her to relieve him to fulfil his duty of receiving the PM and attending his meeting, the Chief Secretary couldn’t have done anything else. Whether he could have and should have defied the orders of the CM to attend the meeting of the PM would be debated for a long time but in my personal view, it was not possible. In a State, he has to go by the directive of the CM. Under the present scheme of things, he was a part of the State Government and not under the direct control of the Central Government.

The Central Government issued an order on 28th of May under Rule 6(1) of All India Service Cadre Rules asking the Chief Secretary who belongs to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), an All India Service, to report to the Central Government on the 31st of May. Ironically, the concerned officer was due to retire on this day but for the extension of three months granted to him as Chief Secretary by the Central Government at the behest of the State Government.

Rule 6(1) is as follows:

“A cadre officer may, with the concurrence of the State Governments concerned and the Central Government, be deputed for service under the Central Government or under a company, association of body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or another State Government.

Provided that in case of any disagreement, the matter shall be decided by the Central Government and the State Governments or State Governments concerned shall give effect to the decision of the Central Government”

The provisions of Rule 6(1) are very clear. The Central Government has the final authority in terms of central deputation of officers belonging to All India Service. However, the provision also entails a particular process. The Central Government cannot issue any order summarily and unilaterally as it appears to have been done in the present instance. There is a process of seeking “concurrence” and in case there is a “disagreement”, the view of the Central Government shall prevail. There was apparently no consultation with the State Government. Hence, strictly speaking, the order was legally flawed as the due process was not followed.

Perhaps the urgency arose because the officer was due to retire on the 31st of May. But this created another problem though not strictly legal in nature. If the officer was indeed retiring on the 31st of May, what would he do at the Centre as he would have superannuated on the day of joining. The extension of his services for three months was in his capacity as Chief Secretary. Hence, this extension would have become infructuous if he had joined at the Centre. Technically, he could have been charge-sheeted on the day of his superannuation and the inquiry could have continued after that. The Chief Secretary was indeed in a bind having got caught in this political cross-fire.

The other issue is whether the Central Government could have taken action against the Chief Secretary for non-compliance of the orders when he was still posted as Chief Secretary and not reported at Delhi on the 31st as directed by the Central Government. Perhaps not. The officer was under the control of the State Government and only the concerned State could have initiated action against the officer. The Chief Minister in her letter, dated 31st of May to the Prime Minister had appealed to his “conscience and good sense” and requested him to “rescind the latest order”.

The Central Government had the option of disagreeing and issuing a fresh order under the Rule. However, the whole controversy got a new twist as the Chief Secretary decided not to avail the extension of three months and has chosen to superannuate on the due date, 31st of May. The drama is still unfolding as the Central Government has apparently asked the Chief Secretary to report on the 1st of June even though the concerned person is no more holding the charge of Chief Secretary. It also appears that the Central Government has initiated proceedings against the former Chief Secretary.

What is the Central Government gaining out of this step of summarily “recalling” the Chief Secretary and insisting on his appearance in Delhi even after his retirement? Perhaps to settle issues between the Centre and the State. The Central Government also has tools in the form of CBI, ED and Income Tax Department to harass the officer and his family members even after retirement. Not very long ago, an Election Commissioner had to “yield”.

Despite having done well on so many fronts, the NDA Government has floundered in the context of human resource management on a number of occasions. This is yet another example where the counsel given by the advisors has apparently put the Central Government, perhaps the PM himself, in an embarrassing position at a time when the whole focus should have been on managing COVID and Yaas fall-out

The entire episode also leaves a bad taste in the mouth and puts All India Service Officers in a quandary. The relations between the Centre and the State have been tense even in the past but now they seem to have plummeted to a new low. There are personal and political issues being settled. What is being sacrificed at the altar are some of the institutions that have held the country together. These institutions, including the one relating to All India Services, are being challenged as never before. The key question is whether political scores should be settled through administrative measures?

— Anil Swarup is former Secretary, Government of India and author of the book 'Not Just A Civil Servant'. The views expressed are personal

Click to read his other columns

(Edited by : Ajay Vaishnav)