Accountability, if strictly enforced, can prove a deterrent to corruption. But accountability rules and procedures are complicated to the extent that seldom does any defaulter find himself in the net of accountability. Add to it the unwillingness of authorities concerned to pursue the cases of defaulters to their logical conclusion. The story of accountability in our State administration is sordid and disheartening.
But the most disheartening aspect is that even the orders of the court are disregarded and treated with contempt when it comes to accountability. In other words the administration has become a rogue that would not surrender to law and to procedures. What then is the way to handle hundreds of cases of alleged corruption pending against the state functionaries? The issue of 147 departmental enquiries figured before the State High Court in the form of Civil Miscellaneous Application (CMA), which was based on exclusive news-item published by EXCELSIOR on February 23 last year. In the course of one year only 27 departmental enquiries have been completed and 95 others are hanging fire. The High Court issued numerous instructions to the administrative authorities of the State to expedite completion of enquiries and submit the report to the court but the administration did not respond. At times the Court had to scold the administration for its lack of interest in pursuing the matter.
How can one explain this piquant situation? Has the authority of the judiciary become so weak and inconsequential that its directives and instructions can be ignored and treated contemptuously? It will be a sad day for our democracy if that happens. The brazen truth is that our administration has become exceedingly politicized. Firstly, the political leaders have been exerting influence, right or wrong and even resort to intimidation to get things done by the bureaucracy according to their wishes. Secondly, the administrative machinery has lost its individuality and moral standard of declining pressures from political class on the basis of adherence to the rules and regulations. This combination of two negative factors has resulted in administration’s ambivalent response to the judiciary and the orders of the court of law.
There is motive in not completing departmental enquiry into the pending cases of alleged corruption. A nexus has come to play its role in such matters. This matter is drawn to the public domain because it is clear that the High Court intends to take proper steps in making the administration perform and deliver in this case. It is sad that the administration has adopted partisan attitude in contravention to its responsibility of providing the people good, clean and transparent governance. During the two decades of militancy, administration has been adversely affected and a new mindset has developed which trivializes rules, regulations and procedures. It is just possible that owing to unusual circumstances and other priorities that invited the attention of the Government, not much attention was paid to correcting the aberrations set in administrative machinery. But that era is over and the State is limping back to normalcy. Therefore whatever is amiss and comes to the notice of the administrative authorities has to be set right.
Repeated warnings by the court of law cannot be dismissed that cheaply as some might think. The onus comes to the doorsteps of the head of the bureaucracy and he shall have to move fast to call for explanation of departmental heads why departmental enquiries are taking unusually long time to complete. He has to fix time schedule for completion of these enquiries and submission of report for further action. There is no sense in passing the buck. The Government has to take serious note of this sordid situation and before the court is obliged to use its powers, we expect the administration to move fast and break the stalemate. Cases against the functionaries have to be proved or disproved; it cannot go on lingering for unspecified time.
Follow our WhatsApp channel