Should majority of the Heads of the Departments and Administrative Secretaries treat the meetings, review meetings etc of the District Development Boards and the decisions taken therein quite casually ? Should even attending such meetings be now treated as optional and subject to individual fancies, let alone taking concrete steps towards implementation of the decisions taken in time bound manner? Should, again, the circulars and administrative directions of the General Administration Department in this regard result into no change in such an uncalled for response? Does such an approach of those Departmental Heads and other officers by treating such an avowed official responsibility as naught and not compulsory in nature, depict total apathy towards the public for the betterment of whom critical decisions are taken in such meetings?
The answers to these questions of utmost importance can be found in circular No.44 of Oct 13, 2017 issued by the Department of the General Administration wherein displeasure in unequivocal terms, was conveyed over absence of many Departmental Heads and officers from the main and review meetings of the District Development Boards which, otherwise are known as institutions of inclusivity. The plea of not having been properly informed has been duly preempted by the “proper delivery” of the notices and invitations to all concerned state authorities who are mandated to attend such meetings and to avoid embarrassing situations in future; all concerned have time and again been impressed upon to positively attend such meetings.
It is a matter to be rued that the situation continues to be more or less the same, viz attending and active participation in the meetings and it can very well be visualized as to how much seriousness of the purpose can be there in respect of taking pains in implementation of the critical decisions taken in such meetings.
Playing truant by the concerned “defaulting” officers in clear cut manner of such instructions related to the commitment of the Government towards the people for development of respective Districts, lands nothing short at dereliction of duties and violating the basis of being in Government service.
This attitude on the part of such officers being at the peak of callousness despite imploring, directions and instructions of the General Administration, finally calls for reversal of such soft persuasive approach. Instead, steps should be taken in respect of initiating the process of taking proper action, though reluctantly, against the erring officers and Heads of the Departments to put things in perspective and to assert the authority. Such uncalled for absenting from such important meetings could also be due to having performance data in respect of implementation quite unsatisfactory and not on expected lines as statements and data have to be presented in such meetings in respect of various decisions taken. This needs to be thoroughly looked into.
When unfortunately things have come to such a pass in the state and it seems that the push having finally come to shove in matters of administering things related to state craft, taking necessary actions become necessary. It must be brought home to everyone connected directly with District Development Board meetings that promptly and regularly attending such meetings is not optional but a must as the Government is supposed to be committed and answerable to people and their representatives. Questions of varied nature in respect of infrastructural development of districts are regularly being asked and issues raised in the State Legislature where result oriented answers are required to be given by the Government.