Flouting directives with impunity

Beyond comprehension as it looks, that while being in Government service, most of the Government servants can ‘afford’ to flout with impunity, the clear cut directives of the General Administrative Department (GAD) and even the State Vigilance Commission. Administratively, and even under service conduct rules, such defying and disregarding of employer’s directives constitute insubordination and thus amounts to committing gross indiscipline, the employer being the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Curiously, there is ‘uniformity’ in respect of the ranks in doing so as the ‘defiers’ are from both gazetted and non-gazetted cadre. The area where such directives are not complied with amazingly is the critical one , that of submission of annual returns of assets and liabilities followed by hosting the same on the websites of the respective departments.
If the importance of timely submission of this information is slightly widened , it means not giving proof or information about one’s integrity and honesty which are the basis of engaging a person in employment and thus putting question marks on the continuity in service of such an employee not disclosing information about owning properties . While non submission could be attributed to any factor , it is tantamount to creating enough scope for speculations about the person’s honesty and suppressing or hiding such personal vital information could well be construed raising assets only after employing unfair and dishonest means and misusing of official position. Every Government servant adequately knows that submission of the vital annual return is to contain and check corruption and corrupt practices and hence the return under reference was pivotal and fundamental to the very ground of engaging a person in employment.
In top Public Sector Undertakings (under GOI), non submission of this return with full details of the property including how raised , sources of funds and their details, etc as also debts raised , details of other liabilities etc are to be submitted by a fixed date without any ifs or buts or any delays. Non submission could immediately land the defying employee into a great trouble. The question is as to the role of the Heads of those departments and offices where such non submission was being treated just casually giving a feeling that the issue was not that serious and , perhaps, submission of the vital return could be treated as optional . We do not need to remind such Departmental Heads about each and every provision under the JK Public men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and other Provisions Act 1983 or the ones under the Prevention of Corruption Act or the reports of the State Vigilance Commission but only to the directives which the GAD has periodically been issuing which binds them with no scope of any deviation. Has the Government held them responsible for thumbing their nose on such rules and directives?
Does the State Administration expect that by dashing fresh communiqués, HoDs would swing in action and wield their powers in reining in the defaulting employees including themselves in case of non submission, by expecting a stern action from the top administration? If in any instance of wilful insubordination, laxity and more elasticity is given preference to stern action , things would remain unchanged. It should be made clear that once in Government service, the Government servant had to obey each and every directive, all instructions and orders failing which his or her services would be in great jeopardy including straight termination. It is only then that the mandatory annual return of Assets and Liabilities would be correctly filled in and meticulously submitted well in time.