How do the virtues of trustworthiness and fortitude get manifested in public service? Explain with examples. (150 Words)

Ans:-Trustworthiness is a virtue of earning faith of others in oneself regarding some purpose. Fortitude is a display of courage in a difficult situation. These virtues are very important in public service owing to the nature of job where the foremost priority is to work for the welfare of people. Sometimes the public service involve challenging situations which would require a test of character for the incumbent.

For example, a fund for rehabilitation of neglected old-aged people is setup. In such a situation, if a person of dubious character is put in charge of that fund, then it may cause great tragedy for the concerned people, furthering their pain. Here a trustworthy person is needed to be made in charge of it.

In another example, suppose you are the SP of your district and a person has committed rape of a poor girl. Now that girl's family has come to the police station to lodge FIR but they were turned away as the accused was politically influential. When they come to you, you are also under pressure from the accused and high political levels. In this case, it would require courage to do the right thing even if it means transfer or some insignificant posting. Thus virtue of fortitude is desirable here.

WHAT IS INTEGRITY AND WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR CIVIL SERVANTS? BY S K MISHRA, IAS (RETD)

Integrity is a personal choice, an uncompromising and consistent commitment to honour moral, ethical, spiritual and artistic values and principles. Integrity compels us to be socially conscious and to welcome both personal and professional responsibility. Its values encourage us to be honest in all our dealings and committed to a lifelong search for truth and justice.

Integrity requires a self discipline and will power capable of resisting the temptation. Its priceless reward is peace of mind and true dignity. There’s one proviso, no one can guarantee that his or her particular version of integrity is actually sound and true, and not misguided.

It is a fact that we are not born with integrity. How well it is ingrained into our character depends upon the healthy development of certain key personality traits, especially during the critical stags of early childhood. How well we maintain personal integrity once it develops depends thereafter on the strength of our values and the moral choice we make.
Public service is a ‘vocation’ and only on this foundation upon which a moral and responsible government can be based. The civil servants need to be people of absolute integrity because only then they can take the civil service as a ’vocation’. It strengthens the sense of mission which a civil servant is supposed to undertake to serve the public; perform duties and fulfill obligations. A similar doetrine of vocation was enunciated several thousand years ago by Lord Krishna in Bhagwad Gita (chapter III, verse20). It has been mentioned there, that ‘’Securing” universal welfare by one’s action is the ultimate measure of a human being but more so of those who hold the public office”.

Civil servants have to set out highest standards of integrity and morality. This requires self sacrifice a concept that rises above individualism and ‘hedonism’ to create an environment of public duty among the civil servants. An exemplary civil servants is not simply one who obeys the laws and behaves within the confines of law but is also one who strives for a moral government.

Integrity requires in a civil servant to incorporate the values of honesty, sympathy empathy, compassion, fairness, self control and duty so that a civil servant will be able to uphold high personal and professional standards in all circumstances. ‘Honesty’ requires ‘truthfulness’, freedom from deception and fraud, fair and straight forward conduct. Sympathy enables a person to be deeply affected and concerned about the well beings of others, to imagine their suffering and be moved by their experience of others especially people who need assistance compassion is a form of spirituality, a way of living and walking through life.

‘Civil Service Conduct Rules’ recommends ‘absolute integrity’ for civil servants, whether they are IAS, IPS, IFS, IRS etc. Also every civil servant is supposed to take all possible steps to ensure the integrity of all government servants for the time being under his control and only be honest but should also have the reputation of being so. Integrity has been considerably widened by declaring that a civil servant must keep himself within bounds of administrative decency. Breach of trust is termed as lack of integrity and the apex court has ruled that in such matter the civil servant should be removed from service. Possession of disproportionate assets, even temporary defalcation of public money is termed as lack of integrity. Honesty and faithful discharge of duty, promptness and courtesy, observance of government policies, general good conduct strengthen ‘integrity’ in civil services.

GS PAPER 4: CASE STUDY 2 WITH MODEL ANSWER BY S K MISHRA, IAS (RETD.)

GS PAPER 4: CASE STUDY 2 WITH MODEL ANSWER
BY S K MISHRA, IAS (RETD.)
Case Study : There are four round-abouts in a city which are very crowded, resulting into a traffic jam. The city has a business potential, besides residents desire that there should be some attempts to beautify these places as is done in many other cities of the country. You are municipal commissioner of the city and a delegation of eminent people have come to meet you with a request to do something for the purpose. You checked up with your finance and accounts department, which expressed its reluctance

to part with resources.
(a) What are various options before you?
(b) Discuss the merits/demerits of each options and finally suggest best option which you would choose giving justifications.

Answer: As a municipal commissioner one has following options.
1. Chief engineer should be directed to prepare a plan and estimate to beautify these places and forward the same to state government to release funds for the purpose.
2. A resolution could be brought in Municipal Corporation to authorize tax collectors to collect voluntary donations from willing residents.
3. Request could be made to local M.P/MLA to take up these schemes out of their MPLAD/MLALAD funds.
4. Steps could be taken to remove encroachments near these places in order to have more spaces for traffic to move smoothly.
5. Some of the best practices which are done elsewhere could be adopted.
Merits/ Demerits of various options –
1. It will help to project our needs and will work in our favour because of its objectivity. However government may unlikely provide the funds because it will have to provide resources to other urban bodies for similar purpose.
2. If any new project has to be taken up, it must be brought before Municipal Corporation. But collecting donation will be illegal because it violates civil service conduct rules.
3. MPs/MLAs have substantial resources and hence they could be requested upon, however they may insist for putting their name in the project. They may also insist for erecting a suitable memorial in the name of their political mentors and in the process the project may get politicalized.
4. The basic purpose could be solved through it and the traffic problem may be solved. However the encroachers may again occupy the vacant space which has become available.
5. Some other urban local bodies might have done some innovative projects which could be replicated, but tailored made projects do not succeed.
The best option will be to tap the business/industrial house or PSU like banks etc and the work could be assigned to them. They could be given exclusive advertisement right with an undertaking that they take the responsibility of maintaining the project.

Private interests and public ethics

Given the now prevalent culture of leaking confidential information, some scepticism and self-doubt as an indispensable ingredient for democratic functioning is called for
Leaks have become a recurrent and common phenomenon in our public life, but are they all equally justified? Should we encourage the culture of leaks along with the proviso that the source not be disclosed? In a democracy, are leaks the best way of providing that information? Can we say that all these spills, from the leaked Nira Radia tapes to leaked private conversations from the meetings of the Aam Aadmi Party, strengthen democracy?
We need a code of public ethics, but before we declare transparency and full disclosure as supreme goods that must trump everything else, we need to recognise that there are two contrary tendencies at work within a democracy. On the one side, public officials and public institutions are required to check their private interests at the door and act in a way that is neutral and fair to all; on the other, when the same public officials deliberate on policies, invariably their individual judgments — and through that their personal concerns, experiences and interests — enter. This means that the working of democratic institutions rests upon two different principles, such that norms of public ethic that serve us well in the first instance carry little conviction in the latter.
No doubt public institutions must be fair and neutral in their working and decisions taken at various levels of governance must be known publicly. Then, right to information is important and it must have a place in democracy. Indeed, it is a valuable instrument for protecting the basic rights of the citizens and holding public officials as well as institutions accountable. However, norms that are necessary for ensuring accountability are not equally important when it comes to other dimensions of public life — for instance, while selecting a candidate to a particular post, or deliberating on electoral strategies of parties, or even discussing different positions in the course of decision-making within an institution.
Giving a fair chance

In the case of filling a post it is necessary to follow established procedures so that all applicants have a fair chance of being considered for the post, but beyond that neither transparency nor full disclosure may be desirable. Indeed, it may be necessary to not disclose the names of the members of the selection board; to not share details of the discussions of the committee in order to protect the fairness of the process. If candidates knew just who the selectors are, they may directly or indirectly seek to influence their decision; similarly, if it were to be known just who did not favour a particular candidate, particular individuals would be left vulnerable.
In the functioning of public institutions, declaring who said what in the name of transparency is not something that must prevail over all other considerations all the time. When it comes to decision-making, and the discussions around it, democracy is served well when individuals have the possibility of expressing their views without fear or favour. If this is not ensured then the urge to succumb to popular sentiment or the interests of the dominant group is substantially increased, and this is surely not going to deepen our democracy.
Besides there are different kinds of public institutions: political parties, the media, and government departments. The primary job of newspapers, for instance, is to provide information. So long as they do not spread rumours or defame individuals without substantial evidence, they can be left free to obtain and share information. But the same ethic may not be warranted when it comes to an educational institution, an intelligence agency or a political party. Even in the case of a newspaper, public ethic may require protection of a whistle-blower; reporters may not disclose the source in the interest of obtaining such information that is essential for safeguarding the rights of the citizens in the future. However, in reporting different points of view, or who said what, when and where, it might indeed be necessary for newspapers to reveal their sources. Without the latter, the seriousness and the veracity of the account would be in question. Rules that we would expect to follow when dealing with whistleblowers would not apply, or be justified, when it comes to giving information about assertions and counter statements. We need to assess the same norm differently in different contexts not because concerned individuals have used or misused them to serve private purposes (although that is something that can, of course, happen) but for structural reasons. For what is appropriate and most desirable in one context may not be so in another sphere of public and institutional life. Most of all, if we believe that there should be free exchange of ideas and an environment of unconstrained debate on public affairs, we have to ensure that individuals are indeed somewhat protected from undue external pressures and manipulations, and are able to express their views freely. Institutions and public bodies function well when individuals are not merely comfortable airing their views privately or to a third party outside, but when they can speak their mind before others in the institution.
This is, of course, the hardest of all tasks because it requires a degree of trust in the functioning of the institution and one’s colleagues, and most of all, a readiness to accept that one’s arguments may not win the day. Democracies are deepened when participants are willing to take the risk of losing an argument. The challenge, however, is that strong belief in the validity and the truths of one’s position compel a person to act in just the opposite way. After all, if I believe that my position is the correct one, or that it embodies the truth, then I must act to ensure that the “right” decision is taken. Since this is an unavoidable dilemma that confronts us all the time, a certain degree of scepticism and self-doubt is an indispensable ingredient for democratic functioning. I not only need to respect others (colleagues and interlocutors) but recognise that I do not possess “the truth.” Perhaps this is the most important condition of democratic life but we hardly ever consider it seriously, let alone value it as a virtue in public life.

A new Kind of Babu

Politics in India has changed forever. Now, it’s the turn of the civil services to change. But can the services heal themselves or will change have to be forced by politicians under siege from exploding expectations? I’d like to make the case that change will be most enduring if it comes from within and

the only criterion for choosing the new Union cabinet secretary should be willingness and ability to reform the civil services. This is particularly important because the window between the cabinet secretary’s appointment and the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations in October is critical.

Politics is experiencing an exciting churn — the generational change in the BJP and the impact of its crazy fringe on the Delhi assembly elections, a potential change or regicide in the Congress party, the magnificent resurgence of the AAP after its goofy resignation and now its internal conflicts, looming expiry dates for regional parties that don’t deliver prosperity or plumbing, campaigns innovating at the speed of Moore’s law, and more money for state governments — all have consequences that are impossible to predict. Expectations morphing from garibi hatao to ameeri banao mean that voters care more about jobs, roads and power than about the envy of income inequality. This makes the notion that bureaucrats must protect India from its politicians and create continuity by defending the status quo dated, patronising and inappropriate. And the notion that politicians can fulfil voter expectations without civil service reform is delusional.
The cabinet secretary of India does not have the same trust, access or convening power that the chief of staff of an American president has. Not only is he stationed far away from the prime minister’s office — in Rashtrapati Bhawan, because the viceroy was once head of government — but his ability to impose his will on secretaries who are close to retirement and who report to independent ministers is at best suspect and at worst absent. But the cabinet secretary is the government’s chief people officer even though his power over empanelment, promotion, postings etc has been unimaginatively or uncourageously exercised so far. The government and the next cabinet secretary need to do three things each in order to modernise the civil services.
First, the government must shift the cabinet secretary to the PMO. Second, it must choose the next occupant of the office based purely on his hunger for civil services reform and make sure that his brain is connected to his backbone. Third, it must empower him to work closely with the pay commission till October and then use the rest of his tenure to deliver to us a civil services that can bear outcomes. Policy outcomes are a complex cocktail of people, processes and technology but the meta-variable is the selection and reward/ punishment system for people. The next cabinet secretary must avoid the infinite activity loop that his role has traditionally been and do three things.
First, he must improve performance and career management. Seniority is an objective basis for promotion but often an ineffective one.
We must move away from a mathematically impossible system in which everybody is above-average, tighten empanelment (currently, the pyramid looks like a cylinder because 75 per cent of officers become joint secretaries and 40 per cent reach the level of additional secretary) and put the best people, irrespective of age, in the right positions. Restoring the confidentiality of the process is critical to reinstating its honesty. And establishing objectivity and trust is critical to restoring its effectiveness.
Second, the new cabinet secretary must formalise lateral entry and political appointments. Any effective organisation has to balance specialists with generalists as well as insiders with outsiders. India’s policy problems are not insurmountable but many of them require specialist input that only lateral entry could provide. This could be done by introducing a new point of entry at the joint secretary level; designating 25 per cent of the top jobs as posts that can be filled through direct political appointments which are coterminous with the government’s term (for instance, 4,500 people resign when a new American president takes over, while, in Delhi, only 10 people do); and easing out civil servants who are not shortlisted to move up beyond a point (similar to the lieutenant colonel level cut-off in the army that avoids top-heaviness).
Third, the pay commission must be reimagined as a performance commission. Pay commissions have never received the “accepted-in-totality” honour that finance commissions get because they end up being “compensation commissions” and mostly formulate implementation plans that lack political economy considerations. The Seventh Pay Commission has a chance to make history by initiating a bold rupture with the past, like the 14th Finance Commission had done. The next cabinet secretary must work with the pay commission and the NITI Aayog to synthesise the useful recommendations of past administrative reform commissions into a plan that can help accelerate the changing of Delhi’s role in ruling India, started by the 14th Finance Commission. The 900 IAS officers who live in Delhi must be reduced to 500. Civil servants must be moved to a cost-to-government compensation structure through the monetisation of all benefits. A mechanism that separates the compensation review for the bottom 90 per cent of civil servants must also be devised for the future.
Politicians and bureaucrats who are talented and ambitious are frustrated with the current system. Chief ministers struggle with the paradox that political priorities like water, school education, labour and health are currently considered as painful postings by the permanent, generalist civil service. Bureaucrats — particularly the talented and idealistic ones — are tired of a system in which you get the top job only two years before retirement. It is a system that does not distinguish between fraud, incompetence and bad luck when things go wrong, has no room for career-planning, and often grants postings based on deafness and blindness rather than competence. The most recent cabinet secretaries have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The next one is being engaged at a time when we have made a new appointment for our tryst with destiny. He must do his bit by boldly demolishing his cradle. The government should start by vacating some space in the PMO.

Babus need govt nod before accepting gifts of over Rs 5,000

IAS and IPS officers will now need to take prior permission from the Union government before accepting gifts, including free transportation, boarding and lodging, worth more than Rs 5,000.

According to the recently amended all-India services rules, they also need to inform the government if they accept gifts of over Rs 25,000 from their relatives or friends.

No member of the service shall accept any gift without the sanction of the government if the value of the same exceeds Rs 5,000, the new rules say.

They may accept gifts from near relatives or personal friends with whom they have no official dealings on occasions such as weddings, anniversaries, funerals and religious functions when the making of gifts is in conformity with the prevailing religious and social practice but they have to make a report to the government if the value of such a gift exceeds Rs 25,000, the rules state.

Free transportation, free boarding and lodging and any other service or pecuniary advantage when provided by a person other than a near relative or personal friend having no official dealing with the member of the service will be construed as a gift, as per the definition in the existing rules.

However, the rules state that gifts does not include casual meals, casual lift or other social hospitality.

Officers shall avoid accepting lavish hospitality or frequent hospitality from persons having official dealings with them or from commercial firms or other organisations, the rules say.

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has notified the All-India Services (Conduct) Amendment Rules, 2015.

Earlier, IAS, IPS and IFoS officers were needed to take prior government sanction before accepting gifts if their value exceeded Rs 1,000, he said.

"(Also), they were to inform government after receiving gifts from near relatives, friends, or on occasions such as wedding, anniversaries, funerals and religious functions if their value exceeded Rs 5,000," the official added.

Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS) and Indian Forest Service (IFoS) are the three all-India services.

"The rules have been amended and the ministries concerned have been told to bring them to the notice of all IAS, IPS and IFoS officers," a DoPT official said. The monetary limits have been revised through the new rules.

There are about 4,802 IAS, 3,798 IPS and 2,668 IFoS officers serving in the country.