A CALL TO INACTION B. K. Chaturvedi (formerly from IAS)” My comments.

FROM HERE AND THERE…..
Good Morning India…..

When I read this article in todays Indian Express “ A CALL TO INACTION”
Punishment to former coal secretary will deter honest officers from taking decisions fearlessly
B. K. Chaturvedi (formerly from IAS)”

I wondered whether I was in Alice’s Wonderland or was the writer BK Chaturvedi out there, a former IAS Babu. I mean this gentleman is practically pleading that most of the babus or may be all, are as honest and pure as a new born baby’s pink bottom! This man, as he claims during his lectures at the Academy “Tried to instil the philosophy of uprightness, fair play and honesty and argued that the government always protected bonafide actions.” So also he keeps harping about these words “Bonafide” and "Honest Decisions” throughout his rambles on the Centre page of IE. What is Bonafide?
It means authentic, genuine, real, true, actual, sterling, sound, legal, legitimate, lawful, valid, unadulterated, unalloyed, proper, straight, fair and square; Informal / honest-to-goodness, legit, pukka.

Now if I apply my mind (which unfortunately resides in my knees due to my Army Service as many IAS babus claim) to the charges on which Shri Harish Chandra Gupta, the pseudo Raja Harish Chandra of today, as made out by his IAS friends, has been convicted and sentenced to jail by the CBI Court, Nothing appears "Bonafide" or "Honest Decision making" to me at all. I think the writer, this former IAS babu’s blood serum sodium could be off mark for such hallucinations or may be my sodium levels have fallen!!

Its one thing to not take money personally but is it OK to allow others to make money from your decisions? Can that be allowed? He may have wilfully allowed others to make money and became a pliant tool in their hands. Why did he not refuse to follow directives and if required resign, when the whole city of Delhi was aware that people were making money? This is a form of intellectual corruption to continue on such posts and to look for post retirement jobs. Does that not amount to corruption?

Whenever IAS people are caught and punished the entire fraternity raise a chorus of decision making in danger bogey. Left to me I would have scrapped these IAS and other Services a long time ago. There are better ways of managing a country than spreading and guarding the Poop of the British Raj.

Gupta has been charged under various sections including 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servants) and 420 (cheating) of IPC and under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. Some of the cases in which Gupta was summoned as accused by the court include those relating to alleged irregularities in allocation of Thesgora-B Rudrapuri coal block to accused firm Kamal Sponge Steel and Power Ltd (KSSPL) and allocation of Moira and Madhujore (North and South) coal blocks in West Bengal’s Raniganj area to Vikash Metal and Power Ltd.

He is also accused in a case of alleged irregularities in the allotment of the Amarkonda Murgadangal coal block to two companies of Jindal group and allocation of Brahmapuri coal block in Madhya Pradesh to accused firm Pushp Steels and Mining Pvt Ltd (PSMPL). While ordering framing of charges against Gupta and others in the case involving KSSPL, the court had observed that then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was kept in the dark by him. It said Gupta had prima facie violated the law and the trust placed on him on the issue of coal block allocations.

Parakh had pushed for auctions to bring sanity to the allocations, Soren over ruled him. As Parakh’s successor, Gupta was willing to play along with the flawed system. Why did he not insist on conducting auctions, as Parakh did and why also did he not put it on record and on noting, this brilliant Babu, the epitome of Mahatma Gandhi as chorused by his brother officers?
Worse, during his term from 2006 and 2008 the coal ministry’s records went into shambles. Often presentations made by the prospective companies along with the file notes about the same made by the screening committee disappeared. This was pointed out in the damning audit report by the CAG under Vinod Rai, which led to the filing of the cases from 2012 onwards. So this is what Mr. Chaturvedi think bonafide means. I am sorry I may be wrong as I have admitted earlier my brain and knee are in similar locations so maybe I perceive differently!

The CBI and the courts held the lack of evidence was a clear indication of foul play. But Gupta and even Parakh claimed the absence of papers could not be held as the sole reason to prove it was. Yet as of now it is the perceived conspiracy that has got Gupta into trouble. The CBI special court has held that it is not just missing papers but a case where the company was given coal from the 30.76 million tonne block to only manufacture sponge iron but instead diverted the mineral to the markets, a case of malafide. Without the papers, in none of these cases it is possible for the ministry to argue that a transparent system of decision making was adopted.
Unfortunately the bulk of them happened during Gupta’s term from 2006 to 2008. Post retirement, he had joined the Competition Commission of India as a member but as the charges got closer home, he had to resign.

So Mr. Chaturvedi Saheb I think there is no need to defend the indefensible so also put IAS Officers in the line of God Almighty, now that will truly indicate a sodium imbalance. The Supreme Court has also taken a call so let us wait and see. Instead of defending your brethren, you are further damming them, by writing such editorials. I am sorry that you think that honest officers of the IAS (hic) will be deterred from taking “fearless decisions”, because of this pseudo Raja Harish Chanders conviction. Now that is a big laugh, which again makes me think of Alice in wonderland and the big rabbit. Why does this man not assume that his Raja Harishandra may not have been that. 

I reproduce the Article below:

A call to inaction
Punishment to former coal secretary will deter honest officers from taking decisions fearlessly

B. K. Chaturvedi

NEWSPAPER REPORTS INDICATE that a CBI court has found former coal secretary Harish Chandra Gupta guilty of corruption and criminal conspiracy in the allocation of a coal block. There are a large number of other cases waiting in the wings for his prosecution. All these imply some irregu-
larity in allocation and Gupta, as chairman of a committee which used to look into
these cases, is said to be responsible. Thiscase raises certain critical issues of governance. Whether this will encourage officers to take decisions fearlessly is now debatble. It takes away the protection enjoyed by honest civil servants.

When we joined the civil service more than five decades back, many situations were iscussed. A guiding principle was that if you are honest and act in a bonafide manner, there is nothing in our system which can cause you harm. The "mantra" of success was your acting in a bonafide fashion.

Later, as cabinet secretary, I had several occasions to address young officers. I tried to in still the philosophy of uprightness, fair play and honesty and argued that the government always protected bonafide actions. It is extremely worrisome that these guiding principles are now being torn to pieces and a new philosophy is emerging which does not distinguish between honest mistakes
and criminal actions.

Gupta is considered one of the country's most honest civil servants. He has been found guilty because there were some shortcomings in the application for the allotment of a coal block. All such allocations were made by an inter-ministerial committee in consultation with state governments.
The block was allegedly given in violation of the prescribed procedures. All coal block allocations have, since then, been cancelled and allocations are now made through
auctions.There is no charge that he, or other civil servants also convicted in the case, got any
advantage, benefit, money, property or financial gain or made any other gains, finan- cial or non-financial. It is difficult to understand a corruption case in which a guilty person has received no benefits or even planned to get them. What sort of criminal conspiracy is this where you neither get any advantage nor expect any benefit and yet you are held guilty for conspiring?

Administrative systems all over the world are based on the ability of senior officers,leaders of teams, to take risks. Such leadership invariably focusses on outcomes with members of the team acting together to achieve results. At times, in taking such decisions, mistakes are made. In the normal
course, these are reviewed and corrective action is taken. Even in the private sector, which many of us admire for delivering excellent results, some decisions don't work out. Such mistakes are a part of governance structures. With this case, we are sending a clear message: "Do not take risks. Just focus
on procedures." It is a recipe for disaster in a developing economy.

In the 1950s, public investment used to be predominant with private investment lagging behind. The major driver of economic growth is now the private sector. In fact, in the 1990s, there were amendments in the coal act to permit the allocation of coal mines for captive use by private power, cement and steel units. Initially, there was not much demand. As the economy expanded, demand picked up. Private investments increased simultaneously. This required a larger number of approvals from the government for coal blocks, iron ore mines, land, water and environment.

It is necessary for the courts to interpret the law on corruption in a way that is consistent with these new economic realities. The courts must appreciate that bonafide mistakes do not constitute a criminal offence. Our courts have very often used the process of judicial review for public good. Many fundamental rights of citizens today flow out of a very positive interpretation of our "right to life" provided under Article 21 of the Constitution. In fact, the right to education as a fundamental right was first construed from that article.

The current law on corruption suffers from two major problems. First, it does notrequire mens rea to find public servants guilty. This is a major requirement in laws on corruption in most countries. This is also a part of the UN Convention against Corruption Under section 13( 1 )(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a public servant is guilty even if no advantage was asked for by him or accrues to him or there is no quid pro quo.

Second, the concept of public interest, in violation of which public servants are deemed guilty of corruption, is not defined in the act If a decision is taken which has immense economic benefits for the nation but is not consistent with previously announced guidelines, how should that be treated?

Wi th an expanding private sector, due to the large increase in economic activity, the possibility of mistakes by public servants has increased. Unless bonafide decision-making
is protected, we may be promoting a culture of indecision — a supine civil service will be busy passing papers from one desk to the other.

Not taking decisions is more harmful than taking the wrong decisions. While the latter can be corrected and the country can then move on to the desired direction, indecision evokes the story of the donkey who is said to have sat on the vertex of an isosceles triangle and died of hunger while not able to decide the shorter route to the base where
plenty of green grass was available.

By punishing honest civil servants like Gupta, we may be promoting a civil service which shuffles files from one desk to the other with no outcomes. Our nation cannot afford this.

The writer is former cabinet secretary and Member Planning Commission