The Hindu Business Line : Temporary shunting is no cure

As a former Chief Electoral Officer myself, I received with mixed feelings the news that India’s Election Commission (EC) has ordered the shifting of the Director-General of Police, and six other police officials, and two Collectors, of Gujarat from their present position, by way of preparing the ground for elections scheduled to be held in that State in December.

Nowadays, elections wherever held are preceded by similar transfers of officials at the behest of the EC. They are of two kinds: One is what I might call benign, and the other accusatory. The benign variety includes transfers of officials who may not have come to any adverse notice, but who may happen to be posted in his home district or whose home may be in an Assembly or Lok Sabha constituency going for poll, or who may have completed three years in that district or constituency.

This is an entirely justifiable precaution against the officials being subjected to pulls and pressures by reason of having developed their own likes and dislikes during their tenure which are likely to influence their conduct against the interest of free and fair poll. In fact, good and honest officers would welcome such a step by the EC in their own interest.

Where, however, the EC proceeds to shift officials on grounds of possible partisanship on their part militating against free and fair poll, the matter becomes worrisome. For one thing, of late, this has become the ruling trend in every election, involving an increasing number of officials, particularly in the higher echelons where they are expected to be role models. This only confirms the disturbing impression already in the public mind that officials right up to the top levels are becoming politicised and cannot be depended upon to attend to election duties without fear or favour.

From all that appears in media reports, it is not clear whether the EC goes by subjective impression formed after a necessarily cursory on the spot consultations and hearings, or on the basis of any actual reliable, verifiable material, and whether, in either case, it gives an opportunity to the concerned officials to give their version. This is an essential safeguard against harassment of officials on the say-so of political parties and their candidates who, at election time, are under severe tension, and for whom the stakes are enormously high.

Proper course

EC, consisting as it does of members experienced in administration and principles of natural justice, must no doubt be aware of the great distress and demoralisation that it may be causing to the officials, apart from grievously damaging their reputation, by its order summarily transferring them without their side being heard.

Assuming that the EC takes sufficient care in this respect, the proper course is for weeding out the officials rather than just shunting them away to keep them out of mischief during elections. There is only an invisible dividing line between lack of professional-cum-intellectual integrity and venality, and one invariably and inevitably brings on the other.

There is a provision in the conduct rules of all categories of officials enabling the authorities to review all aspects of an official’s performance, after he reaches a particular stage in his service, and if his continuance is not found to be in public interest, to send him packing.

This rule can come in handy in getting rid of government employees whose conduct and performance are known to be below par. Unfortunately, in view of the symbiotic relationship between political bigwigs and their favourites in administration and police, there is no chance ever of this rule being applied to cleanse the dovecotes of government.

B. S. RAGHAVAN