Take action against erring bureaucrats within a specific time-frame, don’t allow disciplinary proceedings to linger on endlessly. This message, conveyed by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission in mind, the department of personnel and training (DoPT) has now set up an expert panel to actually suggest how the disciplinary proceedings can be completed within a one-year time-frame.
There is a general perception, not unfounded, that disciplinary proceedings or vigilance inquiries against bureaucrats, often for corruption, carry on for years. Often, this is owing to the government and bureaucracy itself who often do not want action taken against an officer accused of irregularities. Significantly, the DoPT is also of the view that there is no need to retain the “compulsory retirement” clause that is available under the “major penalty” clause when disciplinary proceedings are initiated against an officer. And it has extended very valid reasons for doing away with this clause while noting that it “does not actually work as a deterrent.”
It has pointed out that a bureaucrat, despite being retired under this clause, continues to enjoy all the retirement benefits and therefore “it has very little or no deterrent effect on the charged officer” besides “not serving the original purpose of awarding punishment for a major misconduct.”
Regarding the compulsory retirement clause, the DoPT has also said that “it is as if the government is sending home a disgraced government servant almost in an honourable way even while awarding him major punishment...such government servants may feel a sense of comfort and security even while indulging in wrong-doings with a malafide intention because they know that even after they are compulsory retired, they would get the full pensionary benefits.” The DoPT’s expert panel is headed by former UPSC chairman P.C.Hota.