--- title: "Vol 3 2" book: "PG MPUB 203 (2nd Sem) Personnel Administration & Human Resource Management" category: "PG MPUB" publisher: "Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd." type: "Educational Material" ---  According to Latest Syllabus Read For Sure Success In University Examination RATAN TEXT BOOK PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Vol-3 M.A.Pub.Ad. (Sem-II) Dr. Atul Bhardwaj Published by Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Centre Plaza, Parinay Kunj, Lajpat Kunj Marg, Agra-282002 Copyright Authors & Publishers Published by Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Centre Plaza, Parinay Kunj, Lajpat Kunj Marg, Agra-282002 ISBN :978-81-69604-88-8 Price 210.00 only Printed at : KIDS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. C-60, 61, 62, 63, EPIP, Shastripuram, Agra - 282007 Ph. : +91 9719004921 Unit 15 Discipline: Meaning, Types & Causes of Indiscipline. Essentials of Disciplinary System. Disciplinary Actions Structure 15.0. Learning Objectives 15.1 . Introduction 15.2    Disciplinary Proceedings 15.3    Simplifying Disciplinary Procedures 15.4    Disciplinary Procedures in the UK Civil Services 15.5    Rationalising Disciplinary Procedures in India 15.6    conduct and Discipline 15.7    Suggested reading 15.8    Terminal questions 15.0. Learning Objectives After going through this lesson, the student will be able to understand •    Discipline: Meaning, Types •    Essentials of Disciplinary System. •    Disciplinary Actions 15.1.    Introduction15.1    Article 311 14.1.1    In 2nd ARC Fourth Report, on “Ethics in Governance”, the Commission had dealt with two specific issues relating to accountability of civil servants viz the issue of whether the protection to civil servants enshrined in Article 311 of the Constitution should be retained; and the question of what to do about the dilatory disciplinary proceedings that often seem to make a mockery of any attempt to in stilldiscipline and accountability within the government departments. While the Commission had taken a final view on the former issue, the latter was left open to be dealt with in detail in the present report. It would be instructive to briefly recapitulate the Commission’s deliberations on these two core issues. 14.1.2    On this issue, the Commission concluded as under: “The Commission has given deep consideration to the case for and against Article 311 remaining in the Constitution of India. No other Constitution appears to contain the kind of guarantees that this Article does. The Government of India Act-1919 was the first enactment to apply the ‘doctrine of pleasure’ in India, through Section 96B thereof. Its application was “subject to rules”, and the courts while examining challenges to penalties under that Act applied the extant rules to determine whether these were rightly imposed. In other words, when this doctrine was first applied in India, it was deemed sufficient to provide protection against any unjust exercise of ‘pleasure’. With the provisions of Judicial review now available in our Constitution, the protection available to Government employees is indeed formidable even outside Article 311. This is borne out by the fact that ample relief is available to employees invoking judicial intervention in cases involving compulsory retirements even though Article 311 does not extend to such cases. When Sardar Patel argued for protection of civil servants, the intention was clearly to embolden senior civil servants to render impartial and frank advice to the political executive without fear of retribution. But the compulsions of equal treatment of all public servants and judicial pronouncements have made such a protection applicable to employees of PSUs, para-statal organizations and even body corporates. like cooperatives and this has created a climate of excessive security without fear of penalty for incompetence or wrongdoing. The challenge before the nation now is to confront this exaggerated notion of lifetime security irrespective of performance and to create a climate conducive to effective delivery of services and accountability with reasonable security of tenure. The Commission believes that the rights of a civil servant under the Constitution should be subordinate to the overall requirement of public interest and the contractual right of the State. It cannot be an argument that a corrupt civil servant’s rights are more important than the need to ensure an honest, efficient and corruption free administration. Ultimately, the public servant, an agent of the State, cannot be superior to the State and it is his fundamental duty to serve the State with integrity, devotion, honesty, impartiality, objectivity, transparency and accountability. It is true that the government as an employer is expected to act in a fair manner and it has to be a model employer worthy of emulation by others. It has also to be ensured that honest and efficient public servants are not subjected to the whims and fancies of their superiors. No government can be expected to dispense with the services of a government servant in an arbitrary manner or without a proper enquiry. Such arbitrary removal is not possible even in the private sector. Strictly, there should be no need for retaining Article 310, and legal safeguards may be provided through legislation under Article 309. Articles 309, 310 and 311 form a continuum. If the whole gamut of “conditions of service” is codified as required by the substantive part of Article 309, this can include matters such as disciplinary proceedings and imposition of penalties. Moreover, as noted above, with rule of law accepted as an integral part of the basic structure of the constitution, reasonable protection now attributed to Article 311 will continue to be available to satisfy the requirements of ‘rule of law’. Taking into account these considerations and a fairly common perception that explicit articulation of “protection” in the Constitution itself gives an impression of inordinate ‘protection’, the Commission is of the view that on balance Article 311 need not continue to be a part of the Constitution. Instead appropriate and comprehensive legislation under Article 309 could be framed to cover all aspects of recruitment and service, even with regard to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Appropriate legislation by the respective legislatures may also be ensured through a revised Constitutional provision. Th e Commission will examine in detail issues related to such enactment in its Report on “Civil Services Reform. 2nd ARC Recommendations: a.    Article 311 of the Constitution should be repealed. b.    Simultaneously, Article 310 of the Constitution should also be repealed.” 14.2 Disciplinary Proceedings first analyzed the processes and the data relating to actual cases; and made the following observations: Detailed procedures governing the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and the progress and culmination, thereof, While there are minor variations in this pattern in the states or even in the Union Government in respect of the non-Gazetted establishment, broadly the ‘flows’ indicated therein embrace the entire community of central and state government employees including those of the public sector and nationalized banks. Without going into the details of such procedures, but to be able to appreciate the issues involved, it will be sufficient to note the following •    Complaints received or lapses noticed are examined to ascertain whether they involve a ‘vigilance angle’ (essentially violation of conduct rules) - 1 month •    Decision about whom to refer complaints to ascertain whether these have any substance to the CBI or departmental agencies -3 months. •    Submission of findings of investigations - 3 months. •    Department/CBI report to be sent for ‘First Stage Advice’ to the CVC - 1 month from the date of reference. •    Formulation of CVC’s advice - 1 month. •    Issue of charge-sheet, statement of imputation of misconduct, and list of witnesses and documents etc, if it is decided to proceed in departmental inquiry - 1 month from the receipt of CVC advice. •    Consideration of Defence Statement of the accused employee- 15 days. In order to appreciate the problems involved in the conduct of actual proceedings, it will be necessary to also invite attention to the following factors impinging on departmental inquiries particularly in the Union Government. •    With the formation of Central Administrative Tribunals (CATs) in the 1980s most of the judicial proceedings arising out of departmental inquiries are handled in these fora which, not infrequently, entertain pleas to stay disciplinary proceedings on technical grounds and even entertain pleas against interlocutory orders. Public servants are able to challenge the orders of the tribunal in High Courts. There is, in addition, recourse to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of filing ‘appeal by special leave”. A recent study113 brings out some revealing information. Some of the salient findings (cases studied) are; •    In 116 cases studied, the average time taken between reference to CVC for the ‘first stage advice’ and receipt of the advice in cases studied was 170 days (these cases apparently involved imposition of minor penalty). •    In 234 cases involving proceedings for a major penalty the average time taken between appointment of the Inquiry Officer and completion of inquiry was 584 days. •    In 56 cases the average time taken from receipt of the inquiry report to sending the case to the CVC for ‘second stage advice’ was 288 days. •    In 33 cases the average time taken between the ‘date of occurrence of misconduct’ and sending the cases to the CVC for ‘first stage advice’ was 1284 days. •    Analysis of certain completed cases revealed the following ‘break-up’ of time taken by various agencies; Administrative Department - 69% Inquiry Officer - 17% CVC - 9% UPSC - 5% •    There was considerable variation in the time taken often in the same stages depending on the source relied upon viz. Disciplinary Cases Monitoring and Management Information System (DCMMIS) of the Administrative Vigilance Division of the Department of Personnel and Training, CVC data of ‘first stage advice’ i.e. cases resulting in closure or minor penalties and ‘second stage advice’ of the same organization i.e. cases referred again after departmental inquiry. 14.3    Simplifying Disciplinary Procedures As noted by the 2nd ARC Commission in its Fourth Report on - “Ethics in Governance”, “It has been held that, for proper compliance with the requirement of ‘reasonable opportunity’ as envisaged in Article 311(2), a government servant against whom action is contemplated should, in the first instance, be given an opportunity to deny the charges. If, as a result of an inquiry, the charges are proved and it is proposed to impose any of the penalties of dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the findings of the inquiry. It is not necessary to give him any opportunity of making a representation on the penalty proposed after the amendment of clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution with effect from 3rd January, 1977. Th e Santhanam Committee had listed as many as 15 criteria laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Courts in order to enable conduct of an inquiry in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. Th e interpretations and requirements laid down by the highest courts have made disciplinary proceedings for major penalties very convoluted, tedious and time consuming involving a large number of sequential steps before a person can be found guilty of the charges and punished. Th e process unfortunately does not end there. Provisions exist for appeal, revision and review only after completion of which, the delinquent officer would begin to suffer the penalty. Th e accused officer also has the right to challenge the legality of the action of disciplinary authority before the Administrative Tribunal, get an interim stay of the proceedings and relief thereafter, and to substantively appeal against the decision of the disciplinary authority or the government as the case may be in the Tribunal. Th is apart, he reserves his fundamental right to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court protesting the violation of such rights in the conduct of the inquiry” The Committee on Civil Service Reforms (Hota Committee) in its report had specifically addressed the issue of simplifying disciplinary procedures for government servants in India and made the following recommendations: 1.    To eliminate delay in disposal of a disciplinary inquiry, the Union Public Service Commission need not be consulted in case of a civil servant facing charges of corrupt practice and whose case has been referred to the Central Vigilance Commission for the first stage/second stage advice. If, however the officer is penalized in the inquiry and prefers an appeal the case may be referred to the UPSC for advice on the appeal petition. 2.    Where minor disciplinary proceedings are sufficient to meet the end of justice, major penalty proceedings which are lengthy and time-consuming should not be initiated. 3.    An Inquiry Officer should be relieved from his normal duties for a sufficient period to enable him to complete the departmental inquiry expeditiously and submit the report. 4.    A database on disciplinary cases should be maintained to keep track of their progress. 14.4    Disciplinary Procedures in the UK Civil Services 14.4.1    If we compare disciplinary procedures relating to the civil services in the United Kingdom (UK) and India, the contrast between the highly centralized, multi-layered, long winded and ultimately self-defeating procedure, that is followed in India (which seems to mimic a criminal trial); and the decentralized, relatively simple, flexible and quicker procedures in the UK stand out. 14.4.2    In the UK, the disciplinary rules have the following main features: The Employment Act, 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations, 2004 brought into effect, from 1 October 2004, the provisions in the Employment Act, 2002 which sets out minimum statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures. These apply where the employer, including the Government, first contemplates dismissing or taking such action against an employee on or after that date. The procedure as laid out in Schedule 2 of the Act, involves three stages, and are detailed below. Stage 1 Th e employer must set out in writing the employee’s alleged conduct or characteristics or other circumstances which led them to contemplate dismissing or taking action against the employee. Th e employer must send a copy of the above statement to the employee and invite him or her to attend a meeting to discuss the matter. Stage 2 Th e meeting must take place before the action is taken and must not take place unless: •    the employer has informed the employee about the reasons for the meeting; and •    the employee has had a reasonable opportunity to consider his/her response to that information. On his/her part, the employee must take all reasonable steps to attend the meeting at which he/she may be accompanied. After the meeting, the employer must inform the employee of his/her decision and notify him or her of the right to appeal against the decision if he or she is not satisfied with it. Stage 3 If the employee wishes to appeal, he/she must inform the employer. Th e appeal meeting need not take place before the dismissal takes effect. If the employee informs the employer of his/her wish to appeal, the employer must extend an invitation to attend a further meeting at which the employee may be accompanied. Th e employee must take all reasonable steps to attend the meeting. When reasonably practicable, the appeal should be dealt with by a more senior officer than the one who dealt with the disciplinary hearing. After the appeal meeting, the employer must inform the employee of the final decision. Th e following procedural shortcomings could justify the dismissal being found 242 procedurally unfair, in accordance with Court/Tribunal judgements in the UK: In cases of discipline/ misconduct: •    have the individuals been informed, in writing, of the specific charges being made against them. •    have they been advised of their representational rights at fact finding and disciplinary interviews (work colleague, trade union representative). •    have they been provided with copies of notes/minutes taken at fact finding and disciplinary interviews and given an opportunity to comment. •    have they been told of their right of internal appeal, following a decision to dismiss. •    have they been advised that dismissal could be a consequence of disciplinary action. •    are the rules and regulations clear enough and is there a process in place to ensure the effective communication of relevant policies and procedures? For civil services, in addition to the right to appeal within the department, staff who are dismissed can appeal to the Civil Services Appeal Board, if they are eligible. 14.4.3    The main distinguishing features of the procedure followed in the UK are as under: •    Th e disciplinary procedures outlined in the Employment Act, 2002 are applicable to both civil servants and private sector employees - there is no special protection for civil servants. •    Government departments and agencies are free to make their own disciplinary codes within the framework mentioned above and are even free to define the circumstances in which disciplinary proceedings ought to be initiated. •    Consequently, disciplinary proceedings right up to the first appeal are conducted in house within the department (excepting only the permanent Secretary and HODs for whom the head of the civil service in consultation with the concerned minister will decide) and only in case of dismissals, there may be a right of appeal to the Civil Services Appeal Board. •    Disciplinary action must be taken by someone at least one level higher than the person concerned and the decision on appeal by should be taken by someone independent of the original disciplinary action; but without putting the restriction as in India that dismissal cannot be done by an authority subordinate to that by which the civil servant was appointed (Article 311). •    Instead of the “inquiry” as is prescribed in India under Article 311 as mandatory for any disciplinary procedure involving dismissal or reduction in rank, and which often tends to become like a full-fledged trial or court proceeding; the UK Act only talks of a “meeting” or interview with the employee / government servant to discuss the charges made out against him. 15.5    Rationalising Disciplinary Procedures in India Disciplinary procedures for civil servants in other developed countries also appear to be similar. Without going in for wholesale import of such procedures which may be difficult to implement in India for historical, socio-political and legal reasons, it may still be worthwhile to look at some aspects of the present rules and examine whether these procedures can be simplified, compressed and decentralized so that disciplinary action in government departments becomes more conclusive and not a charade as is often perceived at present. Th e procedures for imposing major penalties such as dismissal or reduction in rank have been depicted by means of a flow diagram in Fig 14.1. Th ese derive their basis from the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Th ese rules are an elaboration of the principles laid down in the Constitution (Article 311). In addition, the requirement for consultation with the UPSC stems from Article 320 (3) (b) of the Constitution and for the “two stage” consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC ), from the Vigilance Manual containing resolutions of Government of India on disciplinary cases having a vigilance angle. 15.6 conduct and DisciplineCode of Conduct The government has prescribed a code of conduct to be observed and followed by the civil servants in the exercise of their official. powers. This code consists of a set of conduct rules which prevent the civil servants from misutilisation of their powers for their personal ends. The important among such rules in India are as follows: •    All-India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 •    All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 •    Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, Central Civil Services (Classification, 1964 •    Central and Appeal) Rules, 1965 •    Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 The above conduct rules deal with the following various matters: 1.    Loyalty to the state 2.    Obeying the official orders of the superior 3.    Political activities of civil servants 4.    Financial transactions of civil servants 5.    Marital restrictions 6.    Relationship with media 7.    Criticism of the government 8.    Acceptance of gifts from the public 9.    Public demonstrations 10.    Employment of relatives and so on 15.6.1    Disciplinary Action Disciplinary action is taken against a civil servant who has violated the conduct rules in the performance of his job. A formal disciplinary action constitutes the imposition of minor as well as major penalties. The following are the minor penalties: •    Census or reprimand •    Withholding increments •    Withholding promotion •    Recovery of pecuniary loose The following are the major penalties: •    Reduction to lower scale or rank •    Compulsory retirement •    Removal from service •    Dismissal from service The difference between removal and dis- missal is that the former shall not disqualify for future employment, while the latter shall disqualify for future employment. The various steps in the process of disciplinary action are: (i)    Calling for an explanation from the employee against whom disciplinary action is initiated. (ii)    Framing of charges, if the explanation is not satisfactory. (iii)    Suspension of the employee from the service. (iv)    Hearing of charges and giving opportunity to the employee to defend himself. (v)    Findings and making report. (vi)    Giving second opportunity to the employee to defend himself against the proposed punishment. (vii)    Punishment order (exoneration). (viii)    Appeal, if any. The following constitutional provisions govern the proceedings of the disciplinary action against a civil servant: (I)    A civil servant cannot be removed or dismissed by any authority subordinate to the authority by which he was appointed (Article 311). (ii)    A civil servant cannot be reduced in rank or removed or dismissed unless he is given reasonable opportunity to defend himself (Article 311). The President of India is the disciplinary authority in respect of All India Services, Central Services Class I (i.e. Group A) and some Class II (i.e. Group B) services. In respect to class III And class IV employees, the secretary of the ministry concerned is the disciplinary authority. 15.7 Summary A disciplinary procedure allows an employer to: Inform an employee that their behaviour is unacceptable or inappropriate. Resolve concerns constructively and encourage improvement. Impose sanctions according to the seriousness of the misconduct. •    Disciplinary Action: Disciplinary action is taken against a civil servant who has violated the conduct rules in the performance of his job. •    code of conduct: The government has prescribed a code of conduct to be observed and followed by the civil servants in the exercise of their official. powers. This code consists of a set of conduct rules which prevent the civil servants from misutilisation of their powers for their personal ends 15.9    Answer to self-check exercisesTo see•    15.1,15.5•    15.615.10    Suggested reading 6.    Maheshwari S.R. "Civil Service in Great Britain", Concept Publishing Company, 1976. 7.    Goel S.L. "Personnel Administration and Management", Deep and Deep publication, New Delhi, 2002. 8.    Palekar S.A. “Public Personnel administration”, ABD Publisher, New Delhi 2020. 9.    Kumar kar Sushant” public personnel Administration”, Kunal Books Publisher, 2018. 10.    Procter W. Arthur ”Principles of Public Personnel Administration” Forgotten Books Publication, 2022. 15.11    Terminal questions What is discipline? Major concern of disciplinary action taken by central government? ******************************************** Unit-16 HISTORY OF CIVIL SERVICES IN INDIA AND REFORMS Structure 16.0 Learning Objectives 16.1    History 16.2    The Design of the Civil Service at Independence 16.3    The First Administrative Reforms Commission 16.4    Recruitment 16.5    Training 16.6    Domain Experties 16.7    Grading Reform 16.8    efficiency 16.9    Accountability 16.10    Performance Appraisal 16.11    Management of the Civil Services 16.12    Summary 16.13    Answer to self-check exercises 16.14    Suggested reading 16.15    Terminal questions 16.0. Learning Objectives After going through this lesson, the student will be able to understand •    History of civil services in india •    Reform of civil services in india The Macaulay Committee which gave India its first modern civil service in 1854 recommended that the patronage based system of the East India Company should be replaced by a permanent civil service based on a merit based system through competitive entry examinations. As Macaulay’s Report said, “Henceforth, an appointment to the civil service of the Company will not be a matter of favour but a matter of right. He who obtains such an appointment will owe it solely to his own abilities and industry” 1    The Report made it clear that only the best and the brightest would do for the Indian Civil Service (ICS). Th e Report stated, “It is undoubtedly desirable that the civil servants of the Company should have received the best, the most finished education that the native country affords”. 2    The Report insisted that the civil servants of the Company should have taken the first degree in arts at Oxford or Cambridge Universities. After 1855, recruitment to the ICS came to be based totally on merit. Th e report of the Civil Service Commissioners pointed out that of those who entered the ICS between 1855 and 1878, more than two-thirds were university men, equipped with a liberal and finished education. Initially, the ICS sought its recruits from Oxford and Cambridge. It was thus an elite service. Subsequently, it opened its doors to Indians and from 1922 onwards the Indian Civil Service Examination began to be held in India. 1 6.2 The Design of the Civil Service at Independence While designing a successor civil service, the Indian political leaders chose to retain elements of the British structure of a unified administrative system such as an open-entry system based on academic achievements, elaborate training arrangements, permanency of tenure, important posts at Union, State and district levels reserved for the civil service, a regular graduated scale of pay with pension and other benefits and a system of promotions and transfers based predominantly on seniority. The civil services in India can be grouped into three broad categories. Services whose members serve both the Union and the State Governments are termed as All India Services. Services whose members serve only the Union Government are termed Central Civil Services. Apart from these, the State Governments have their own group of services – State Civil Services. Th e posts in the Union and the State Governments are hierarchically arranged into four Groups – Group A to Group D. Article 312 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to create the All India Services (AIS) on the fulfilment of certain conditions. Th e Indian Administrative and Police Services are deemed to be services created by Parliament under this Article. Section 3 of the AIS Act, 1951 and the rules and regulations made by the government prescribe the selection process for the IAS. Similar provisions exist for the IPS and the IFoS. The key objectives of government in creating the AIS are (a)    preserving national unity and integrity and uniform standards of administration (b)    neutrality and objectivity - non-political, secular and nonsectarian outlook (c)    competence, efficiency and professionalism - at entry by attracting the best and brightest and throughout the career (d)    integrity and e)    idealism. 1 6.3 The First Administrative Reforms Commission Since Independence, there have been about fifty Commissions and Committees at the Union Government level to look into what can be broadly characterised as administrative reforms. The First Administrative Reforms Commission set up in January, 1966 was asked, in particular, to consider all aspects relating to the following subjects : The machinery of the Government of India and its procedures of work; Th e machinery for planning at all levels; •  Centre-State relationship; •  Financial administration; •  Personnel administration; •  Economic administration; •    Administration at the state level; District administration; •  Agricultural administration; •    and Problems of redress of citizens grievances. The Commission submitted 20 Reports in all, as per the details given below, before winding up in mid-1970: These 20 Reports contained 537 major recommendations. Based on the inputs received from various administrative Ministries a report indicating the implementation position was placed in Parliament in November, 1977. A gist of the recommendations of the First ARC that are relevant to this Report are outlined below: a.Need for specialization: The first ARC recognized the need for specialization as the functions of Government had become diversified. A method of selection for senior management posts in functional areas and outside functional areas was laid down. b.    Unified Grading structure: A unified grading structure based on qualifcations and nature of duties and responsibilities was suggested. c.    Recruitment: On this subject, the ARC recommended: i.    A single competitive examination for the Class I services, with the age limit raised to 26 years. ii.    Lateral entry to technical posts at senior levels. iii.    Direct recruitment to Class II services to be discontinued. iv.    A simple objective type test to be conducted for recruitment of clerical staff . v.    Recruitment to Central Government posts in certain sectors to be made from among the State Government employees. d.    Recruitment Agencies: i.    A new procedure for appointment of members of the UPSC and the State Public Service Commission was suggested. ii.    Setting up of Recruitment Boards for selection of clerical staff was recommended. e.    Training: a national policy on Civil Service Training to be devised. f.    Promotions: Detailed guidelines for promotion were outlined. g.    Conduct and Discipline: Reforms in disciplinary enquiry proceedings and setting up of Civil Service Tribunals was suggested. h.    Service Conditions: The Commission also gave recommendations on matters related to overtime allowances, voluntary retirement, exit mechanism, quantum of pension, government holidays, incentives and awards to be given on timely completion of projects, and establishing work norms for various posts that may be reviewed by the Staff Inspection Unit. Apart from the First Administrative Reforms Commission, as stated earlier, several other Commissions and Committees were set up over the years to examine various aspects of Civil Services Reforms. The recommendations made by these Committees and Commissions including, of course, of the first ARC are grouped issue-wise and discussed in the following paragraphs. 16.4    Recruitment In any governance system the quality of its public servants is critical and in this context recruitment of suitable persons is of great importance. Those aspiring to be civil servants must have not only the required skills and knowledge, but also the right values which would include integrity, commitment to public service and above all, commitment to the ideals and philosophy embodied in the Constitution. Therefore the recruitment process, apart from being transparent, objective, fair and equitable should also ensure that the right type of persons join the civil services. The system of recruitment to the civil services in India has evolved over the years. Several changes have been made in the recruitment process, especially after Independence to reflect the needs of the administration from time to time. A number of Committees and Commissions were set up to make recommendations on various aspects of recruitment. These recommendations are included in the Report on Public Administration by A.D. Gorwala, 1951; Report on the Public Services (Qualifications for Recruitment) Committee, 1956 – also known as Dr. A. RamaswamiMudaliar Committee Report; Report on Indian and State Administrative Services and Problems of District Administration by V.T. Krishnamachari, 1962; ARC’s Report on Personnel Administration,1969; Report of the Committee on Recruitment Policy and Selection Methods, 1976 – also known as the D.S. Kothari Committee Report; Report of the Committee to Review the Scheme of the Civil Services Examination, 1989 – also known as the Satish Chandra Committee Report; Report of the Civil Services Examination Review Committee, 2001, also known as Professor Yoginder K. Alagh Committee Report; Report of the Committee on Civil Service Reforms also known as the Hota Committee Report, 2004. A.D.Gorwala’s Report (Report on Public Administration, 1951) recommended that recruitment to all grades of Government service should be conducted in a manner which eliminates scope for patronage and suggested that this principle should also apply to temporary staff . Dr. A. RamaswamiMudaliar Committee Report, 1956, on Public Services (Qualifications for Recruitment) recommended that a University degree should be the minimum qualification for recruitment into the higher services whereas for secretarial and ministerial services a University degree need not be insisted upon. Th is Committee also recommended that the age limit for the highest executive and administrative services should be kept between 21-23 years. The Krishnamachari Committee Report (Report on Indian and State Administrative Services and Problems of District Administration by V.T. Krishnamachari, 1962) analysed the recruitments to Class I and Class II services in the State Governments and recommended that recruitments should be made annually. The first ARC emphasized the importance of proper personnel planning and cadre management. It recommended that recruitment to the IAS/IFS and other non-technical Class I services should be made only through a single competitive examination. It also recommended that the upper age limit for taking the civil services competitive examinations should be raised to 26 years. Th e First ARC further recommended that direct recruitment to Class II posts of Section Officers should be stopped and these posts may be filled by promotion of Assistants. Th e Commission also suggested that recruitment to clerical and other secretarial posts should be conducted through simple objective tests. Th e Commission recommended constitution of Recruitment Boards for appointment of Class III and Class IV employees. The D.S. Kothari Committee Report on Recruitment Policy and Selection Methods, 1976, interalia recommended a major change in the examination system. They recommended a two stage examination process – a preliminary examination followed by a main examination. This Committee also suggested changes in the training pattern for the civil services. The Fifth Central Pay Commission suggested that employment on contract basis should be encouraged and Government employees should have the right to retain their lien for two years in case they wish to migrate to the private sector. The Civil Services Examination Review Committee, 2001 (chaired by Professor Yoginder K. Alagh) recommended major changes in the structure of the examination system for recruitment to the civil services. It favoured testing the candidates in a common subject rather than on optional subjects. Th e Committee on Civil Service Reforms (Hota Committee Report, 2004) made recommendations, inter alia, on recruitment and recommended that the age for entrants to the higher civil services should be between 21-24 years with a five years’ age concession for members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and three years’ for the Other Backward Classes. The Hota Committee also recommended that aptitude and leadership tests may be introduced for selection, and that probationers may be allowed one month’s time after commencement of training to exercise their option for Services. 16.5    Training While a number of Committees have emphasised the importance of training – both induction and in-service, some of the major recommendations are given below: The Report on Public Administration by A.D. Gorwala (1951) highlighted the fact that in order to have suitable personnel to staff the public services, it is essential that there is proper recruitment and training and an adequate organization and methods set-up. It also recommended an induction training to equip a civil servant with the necessary knowledge and skills to perform his/her duties followed by trainings at designated intervals to refresh his/her knowledge, keep him in touch with new developments and his/her mind active, supple and receptive. Th e Committee recommended the appointment of a Director of Training to closely monitor all aspects of training. The Report on Indian and State Administrative Services and Problems of District Administration by V.T. Krishnamachari (1962) emphasised that State Civil Service officers should also undergo a structured training similar to that for IAS officers. It also recommended establishment of training institutes in States with the help of the National Academy of Administration. The First ARC emphasized that the training should prepare the individual civil servant not only for performing his/her present job, but also for shouldering higher responsibilities and meeting the new and complex challenges in the future. Th e ARC recommended the formulation of a national policy on civil services training. It also recommended the creation of the Central Training Division in the Department of Personnel. Th e Commission further recommended changes in the contents of the foundation courses at the National Academy of Administration. The Committee to Review In-Service Training of IAS officers, (Yugandhar Committee, 2003) examined the efficacy of the in-service training of IAS officers and subsequently made several recommendations to further strengthen and improve these. Its recommendations, inter alia, included the need for three mid-career training programmes in the 12th, 20th and 28th years of service. The training programme in the 12th year of civil service should be for a minimum duration of 8 weeks consisting of 5 weeks of academic content and 3 weeks of study, training and exposure visits to study best practices in India and abroad. Th e training programme in the 20th year of service should be for a duration of 12 weeks. Th e duration of training in the 28th year of service was not specified. Trainings at these 3 stages was suggested as there is a “major shift” in the nature of work of the officer, at these stages of their career. 16.6    Domain Experties The first ARC classified higher civil service posts into two categories: (a)    posts in the field, and (b)    posts at headquarters. The field posts were held by the members of the ‘functional’ services which included not only the various engineering services but also services such as accounts and income tax. The first ARC noted that the only service that was not functional but occupied most of the higher posts in the civil services was the IAS. Th e ARC recommended that the IAS should be converted into a functional service. Consistent with its philosophy of organizing the administrative machinery along functional lines and inducting talent from all sources, the ARC recommended eight broad areas of specialization: >    Economic Administration >    Industrial Administration >    Agricultural and Rural Development Administration >    Social and Educational Administration >    Personnel Administration >    Financial Administration >    Defence Administration and Internal Security >    Planning The first ARC recommended a scheme of reforms to enable entry into middle and senior management levels in the Central Secretariat from all Services on the basis of knowledge and experience in the respective areas of specialization. Th e ARC also indicated, in broad terms, the knowledge and specialization required for staffing posts in each of these areas. Th e 255 selection of personnel to the eight areas of specialization was to be made through a midcareer competitive examination. All Class I officers belonging to the All-India and Central Services with experience of eight to twelve years in the functional areas would be eligible. Th e selection process would consist of a written test to be administered by the UPSC and an interview to be conducted by a committee consisting of the Chairman, UPSC and two senior Secretaries of the Government of India. The Report of the Group constituted to Review the System of Performance Appraisal, Promotion, Empanelment and Placement for the All India Services and other Group ‘A’ Services (Surinder Nath Committee Report, 2003) suggested that assigning particular domains to the officers should be a key step for their selection to the Central Staffing Scheme posts. The Group suggested the following 11 domains: >    Agriculture and Rural Development >    Social Sectors (Education, Health, Tribal Welfare, etc.) >    Culture and Information >    Natural Resources Management including Environment (green side) >    Energy and Environment (brown side) >    Communication Systems and Connectivity Infrastructure >    Public Finance and Finance Management >    Industry and Trade >    Domestic Affairs and Defence >    Housing and Urban Affairs >    Personnel and General Administration The Committee suggested that officers may be assigned to a maximum of three domains out of the eleven listed. Th e assignment of domains may be a part of the empanelment process at JS/AS levels which would identify officers for posting to the Government of India at levels of JS and above. Officers due for consideration for empanelment may submit a write-up summarising their experience, academic background, training courses undergone, research accomplishments, recognitions relevant to the domain areas, and significant achievements during their career relevant to their areas. Th ese write-ups may be scrutinised by the Empanelment Committee. Th e output of the empanelment process would be a list of officers found suitable for selection to specific positions under the Central Staffing Scheme, together with their domain assignments. The Committee also suggested that for the empanelment process, individual batches may be 256 taken up sequentially along with those from the previous batches who are due for review. Thus, there would be a fresh batch to be considered each year and some review batches.Cases of such officers who are not empanelled when their batch is taken up for consideration on the first occasion, may be reviewed twice. The Hota Committee on Civil Services Reforms, 2004, had recommended that domain assignment should be introduced for civil servants to encourage acquisition of skills, professional excellence and career planning. It had also recommended that empanelment and posting of Joint Secretaries, Additional Secretaries and Secretaries should be carried out through domain assignment, competitive selection and matching of available skills with the job requirements. 16.7 Grading Reform The first ARC recommended a unified grading structure so that posts entailing similar qualifications, difficulties and responsibilities are grouped in the same grade. Th e principle of equal pay for equal work was sought to be recognized for the entire country for both the Union and the State Governments and even the local bodies. It was of the view that in the absence of a careful evaluation of the work content of jobs at certain levels and the matching of scales of pay thereto, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be implemented. The imbalance in remuneration attached to headquarters posts and field posts and the multiplicity of pay scales for different groups was sought to be addressed by this unified grading system. For grading, it recommended that the following considerations be taken into account: •    In services that provide for postings in the secretariat and at the field level, the liability for service all over the country should be reflected in the grading system. •    For services that provide only for field postings or postings only in secretariats but not in both, the grades would have to be related to the duties and responsibilities of these posts. •    Th e fact that the members of the State civil services are required to work only within the State and not outside, should be reflected in their grades. •    Posts involving higher research should be graded high, even though such posts carry little or no administrative responsibility. The Commission recommended that the number of grades should range between 20 and 25. 16.8    Efficiency There has been a succession of Committees that were asked to recommend measures for increasing the efficiency of the civil services. Th e Secretariat Reorganization Committee (1947), under the chairmanship of Sir Girija Shankar Bajpai examined the functions of the existing departments of Government of India with reference to relative priority and necessity of their activities and made recommendations about how these activities were to be undertaken by the Union Government with the available personnel. In 1949, the GopalaswamiAyyangar Committee while recommending restructuring of the Central Secretariat, suggested that a Department should be identified with a Secretary’s charge and a Ministry should be identified with a Minister’s charge. It also recommended the abolition of the separate grade of Additional Secretary. For better coordination of policy and planning, the Committee suggested grouping of the Departments dealing with economic and social services into four bureaus. It also recommended the creation of an Organization and Methods machinery. A.D. Gorwala, in his two reports to the Planning Commission in 1951, recommended that there should be greater understanding between Ministers and civil servants. More concretely, Gorwala asked for an Organization and Methods (O&M) machinery and Whitley Councils.10 Th e Appleby Report (1953) also contained recommendations relating to the establishment of O&M machinery and an Institute of Public Administration. Th ese two recommendations were implemented by Government. The various Reports of the first ARC underscored the significance of an efficient administrative system. Some of the recommendations to enhance efficiency included, suitable awards such as rolling cup/shield to be given as incentives for timely completion of specific projects, cash rewards for valuable suggestions given for simplification of work that led to economies in expenditure and increased efficiency, establishing work norms and examining staff strength on the basis of studies by Staff Inspection Units. Th e Fifth Central Pay Commission (2000) stressed upon the need to optimise the size of the government machinery. Th e Expenditure Reforms Commission (2001) emphasised on a drastic downsizing of the government staff strength for securing modern and professional governance and also reducing the increasing salary bill of the Government of India. Th e Committee on Civil Services Reforms (Hota Committee, 2004) emphasised the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) to transform Government by making it more accessible, eff ective and accountable. It stressed on the need to recognise that e-governance is about discarding old procedures and transforming the process of decision making and that technology is merely a tool and a catalyst for such transformations. 16.9    Accountability The Committee on Prevention of Corruption (Santhanam Committee) made a range of recommendations to fight the menace of corruption. It recommended the constitution of the Central Vigilance Commission, and administrative vigilance divisions in all Departments and major organizations of the Government. Th e Committee suggested rules to be framed for governing the conduct of civil servants. Some suggested changes in the rules were fi ling of assets and liabilities statement instead of immoveable property statement by government servants, rules regarding receipt of gifts and raising of contributions, and rules regarding dealing in stocks and speculations. Changes were also suggested in Art. 311 of the Constitution of India for conducting disciplinary proceedings against government servants. Th e Committee also suggested a systematic review of the laws, rules, procedures and practices of the Ministries so that the possible scope and modes of corruption may be identified and remedial measures prescribed. Changes in the Indian Penal Code were also suggested to strengthen anti corruption measures. Economic offences, evasion of taxes, profiteering, black-marketing, misappropriation of public properties, trafficking in licences and misuse of position by a public servant in making contracts and issuing licenses etc, it was suggested, should fi nd a prominent place in the general criminal law of the country. It was also suggested that the Law Commission should further look into these issues. Th e definition of public servant was recommended to be widened under the IPC to include Ministers, employees of PSUs etc. It was also recommended that offering of bribes should be made a substantive offence. Th e Committee further suggested that on completing 25 years of service or 50 years of age, a government servant may be retired without prescribing any reason, if the government thinks it fit. Th is was subsequently incorporated in Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. The first ARC recommended that the departments and organizations which were in direct charge of development programmes should introduce performance budgeting. Th e ARC also recommended the establishment of two special institutions, the Lok Pal to deal with complaints against the administrative acts of Ministers and Secretaries to the government at the Centre and the Lok Ayuktas to deal with such complaints in States. The Hota Committee recommended that Sections 13 (1) (d) and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be amended to protect honest civil servants from malicious prosecution and harassment. It also recommended that a Code of Ethics should be drawn up for civil servants incorporating the core values of integrity, merit and excellence in public service. Another recommendation of the Hota Committee was that each department should lay down and benchmark services to be delivered, methods of grievance redressal and public evaluation of performance. It also recommended that a Model Code of Governance should be drawn up benchmarking the standards of governance to be made available to the citizens. It further recommended that an annual State of Governance Report, benchmarking the performance levels of each State/department/Ministry should be brought out. 16.10    Performance Appraisal The first ARC had recommended several changes in the performance appraisal system as indicated below. •    The term ‘performance record’ should be used instead of ‘confidential report’. •    At the end of the assessment year, the civil servant should furnish an account of the work done by him/her during the year, to his/her reporting officer and this account should form a part of the performance record. Th e reporting officer should take note of this account while grading the civil servant. •    Grading in the performance report should consist of three categories: (a) fi t for promotion out of turn, (b) fi t for promotion, and (c) not yet fi t for promotion. Th e category ‘unfit for promotion’ should be scrapped. •    Only 5 to 10 per cent of the civil servants engaged in work of a similar nature and at the same level in any organization, should be given the grade “fit for promotion out of turn”. •    Adverse remarks should not be communicated to the civil servant. When adverse remarks are recorded, the reviewing officer should, after discussing them with the reporting officer, and, if necessary, with the officer reported upon, either confirm the remarks or suitably modify them. 2.10.2 The Fifth Central Pay Commission was of the view that the ACR format should follow the rating system based on a 10 point scale as in the Armed Forces. It was also recommended that the final grading in the ACR should be communicated to the employee. The Pay Commission also recommended a quinquennial appraisal of Group A officers, so that a full picture of their personality emerges after every five years. It recommended restoration of the Annual Confidential Report for Group D cadres. The Report of the Group constituted to review the system of Performance Appraisal, Promotion, Empanelment and Placement of the AIS and Other Services (Surinder Nath Committee, 2003) recommended that – •    Performance appraisal should be primarily used for the overall development of an officer and for his/her placement in an area where his/her abilities and potential can be best used. •    Th e agency assigned the responsibility of monitoring the timely writing of annual performance reports should put in place a computerized system for more effective monitoring. •    The entire performance record including the overall grade should be disclosed to the officer reported upon. In case the appraisee submits any comments, it would be open to the reporting and reviewing officers to accept the comments and modify the performance report accordingly. In case they do not accept the representation of the appraisee, the report may be placed before a designated referral board that would consider the matter and make changes if required including the overall grading. •    As yet, there is no established modality for evaluation of an officer’s performance by peers, subordinates and clients. It would be useful to supplement the formal performance appraisal regime with an institutionalised means of ascertaining the reputation of civil servants consistent with our culture and ethos. •    Only those who can demonstrate a credible record of actual performance and possess the necessary knowledge and skills required for higher responsibilities should be promoted. Promotion norms should be stringent and the process of promotion based on merit and competition rather on a simple attainment of a priori benchmarks. Officers must be evaluated not only on the basis of their performance in the lower positions but also in respect of their level of preparation by way of acquiring the necessary skills and knowledge for the higher level positions. •    There is no benefit in retaining officers who lack demonstrated competence, or who are unqualified, or of doubtful moral or financial integrity or who are in unacceptably poor health. It is important that an effective system of screening with the following norms may be adopted for identifying the officers to be screened out: >    An officer who has failed to make it to the select list for promotion to the next higher grade three times. >    An officer who has encountered three proceedings resulting from vigilance enquiries or criminal proceedings in respect of alleged lapses of moral or financial integrity in the course of his/her career, even if the officer is cleared on completion of proceedings in each of these, may be screened out for lack of moral or financial integrity. >    An officer who has failed three times to qualify in the requisite career courses for his/her next promotion. >    An officer who is permanently medically unfit to perform the normal duties of the service as revealed from the biennial medical examination. The Hota Committee on Civil Services Reforms, 2004, recommended replacing the ACR with a system of performance assessment in which greater emphasis is placed on objective assessment against agreed work plans. 16.11    Management of the Civil Services The first ARC recommended the creation of a separate Department of Personnel to be entrusted with the responsibility for •    Formulation of personnel policies for the Central and All-India Services, and inspection and review of their implementation. •    Talent-hunting, development of personnel for senior management and processing of appointments for senior posts. •    Manpower planning, training and career development, research in personnel administration. •    Discipline and welfare of staff and machinery for redressal of their grievances. •    Liaison with the Union Public Service Commission, State Governments and professional institutions. •    Staffing of middle-level positions in the Central Secretariat. The first ARC specifically recommended that the Department of Personnel should not administer any service cadre, and that the administrative control of different services should vest with the individual ministries. It also recommended that the administration of the IAS, IPS and the Central Services should be done by the Ministry of Home Affairs while management of the Indian Economic Service and the Indian Statistical Service should be transferred to the Department of Economic Affairs. While noting that the Department of Personnel should be placed directly under the Prime Minister, the first ARC recommended the creation of an advisory council on personnel administration to act as a feeder line of new thinking on personnel administration. The ARC recommended that the advisory council should consist of official and non-official experts in different aspects of personnel management drawn from all over the country. The Fifth Central Pay Commission advocated the constitution of a high-powered Civil Services Board both at the Centre and the States. It also recommended fixation of minimum tenure for each post. It suggested that no premature transfer should be allowed. It further recommended that the findings of the Civil Services Board are to be accepted invariably and in case of disagreement the entire proceedings should be laid on the Table of the House. 16.12    summary As a result of the deliberations of these Commissions and Committees on different aspects of public administration and the recommendations made, there have been incremental reforms-such as creation of a separate Department of Administrative Reforms in the Union and State Governments, setting up of the Indian Institute of Public Administration, setting up of the Central Vigilance Commission, Constitution of Lokayuktas in States, strengthening of citizens’ grievance redressal machinery, drawing up of citizens charters, focus on training and capacity building of civil servants, restructuring of the recruitment process and modifications in the performance appraisal system. Many of the recommendations involving basic changes have not been acted upon and therefore, the framework, systems and methods of functioning of the civil services based on the Whitehall model of the mid-nineteenth century remains largely unchanged. 16.13    Answer to self-check exercises To see extent • 1.1,1.12 16.14    Suggested reading 1.    Maheshwari S.R. "Civil Service in Great Britain", Concept Publishing Company, 1976. 2.    Goel S.L. "Personnel Administration and Management", Deep and Deep publication, New Delhi, 2002. 3.    Palekar S.A. “Public Personnel administration”, ABD Publisher, New Delhi 2020. 4.    Kumar kar Sushant” public personnel Administration”, Kunal Books Publisher, 2018. 5.    Procter W. Arthur ”Principles of Public Personnel Administration” Forgotten Books Publication, 2022. 16.15 Terminal questions • Explain history of civil service Reform in India Unit-17 RELATION BETWEEN THE POLITICAL EXECUTIVE AND CIVIL SERVANTS Structure 17.0. Learning Objectives 17.1 . Introduction 17.2    pay commission in India 17.3 . Composition pay Commission 17.4    Summary 17.5    Self check exercises 17.6    Glossary 17.7    Answer to self-check exercises 17.8    Suggested reading 17.9    Terminal questions 17 .0. Learning Objectives After going through this lesson, the student will be able to understand 17.1    Introduction In a democracy, power vests with the people. This power is exercised through its elected representatives who have the mandate to govern them for a specific period. Th e civil services by virtue of its knowledge, experience and understanding of public affairs assist the elected representatives in formulating policy and are responsible for implementing these policies. Parliamentary democracies are usually characterized by a permanent civil service which assists the political executive. Under the Presidential form of government (like in the US), the higher echelons of the civil services are, in contrast, appointed by the government of the day (spoils system). India has adopted the British model. Some advantages of having an independent, permanent and impartial civil service are as follows: i.    The spoils system has the propensity to degenerate into a system of patronage, nepotism and corruption. Having a credible recruitment process through an impartial agency provides a defence against such abuse. ii.    Public policy today has become a complex exercise requiring in-depth knowledge and expertise in public affairs. A permanent civil service provides continuity and develops expertise as well as institutional memory for effective policy making. iii.    A permanent and impartial civil service is more likely to assess the long-term social payoff s of any policy whereas the political executive may have a tendency to look for short term political gain. iv.    A permanent civil service helps to ensure uniformity in public administration and also acts as a unifying force particularly in vast and culturally diverse nations. v.    A permanent civil service like any other reputable profession is likely to evolve over time an ethical basis for its functioning. A healthy working relationship between Ministers and civil servants is critical for good governance. While the principles governing the roles and responsibilities of Ministers and civil servants are well defined in political theory, in the actual working of this relationship this division of responsibility becomes blurred with both sides often encroaching upon the other’s sphere of responsibility. In any democracy, Ministers are responsible to the people through Parliament and therefore the civil servants have to be accountable to the Minister. However, an impartial civil service is responsible not only to the government of the day but to the Constitution of the land to which they have taken an oath of loyalty. At the same time, implementing the policies of the duly elected government is a core function of civil servants. Th at is why the division of responsibility between the civil servants and ministers needs to be more clearly defined. A framework in which responsibility and accountability is well defined would be useful. 17.2    Constitutional Provisions in India The Indian Constitution provides for separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary with well-defi ned roles and responsibilities for each one of them. Since India is a parliamentary democracy, there is an interface between the legislature and the executive at the level of the Council of Ministers, which is collectively responsible to the legislature. In terms of Articles 53 and 154, the executive power of the Union and the States vests in the President or Governor directly or through officers subordinate to him. Th ese officers constitute the permanent civil service and are governed by Part XIV of the Constitution. The other part of the executive is the ‘political’. Th e President or Governor is required to act according to the aid and advice of his/her Council of Ministers, appointed under Articles 73 and 163 of the Constitution. The President and Governor frame rules for the conduct of business in the government. Work is allocated among Ministers as per the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules and the manner in which the officers are required to help the President or Governor to exercise his/her executive functions is governed by the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules. What this means is that though officers are subordinate to the President or Governor, they carry out the orders. of the Council of Ministers in accordance with the rules framed in this behalf. Th e Rules of Business of Government do provide for the Secretary to the Government to advise his/ her Minister about the course of action proposed in a particular matter and to submit to him a note which tells him about the propriety or legality of his/her orders and suggest that either such orders not be given or that they be suitably modified. Th e relationship between the Secretary and the Minister is organic. Th e Minister has the mandate of the people to govern, but the Secretary has an equivalent constitutional mandate to advise the Minister. Once his/her advice has been suitably considered, unless the Minister passes an illegal order, the Secretary is bound to implement it. Th e Minister, on his/her part, is required to support the Secretary who is implementing his/her order. Once a law is framed or rules and regulations are approved, they apply to everyone, whether a member of the political executive or of the permanent civil service. A civil servant is required to implement the orders of government without bias, with honesty and without fear or favour. It is precisely in this area that a degree of a difference of opinion often occurs between the political executive and the civil servants. 17.3    The Civil Services in Post-Independence India In the initial years after Independence, relations between Ministers and civil servants were characterized by mutual respect and understanding of each other’s respective roles, with neither encroaching upon the other’s domain. However, in subsequent years, matters started changing for the worse. While some civil servants did not render objective and impartial advice to their Ministers, often some Ministers began to resent advice that did not fit in with short-term political interests. Th ere was also a tendency for some Ministers at the Union and the State levels to focus more on routine administrative matters such as transfers in preference to policy making. At the same time, some civil servants learnt the art of ‘manoeuvring’ for favours in return for pliability in their decision making. Th is trend was further accentuated by rising materialism and acquisitiveness in society as well as decline in values across the board. As a result, ‘political neutrality’ which was the hallmark of the civil service in the pre-Independence era as well as in the period right after Independence, was gradually eroded. Th ese trends led to the phenomenon of ‘politicisation of the civil service’ in India. 17.4    Areas of Friction The areas of potential conflict in the relationship between the political executive and the permanent civil service can be identified as follows: a.    The concept of neutrality b.    Advisory role of civil servants in policy making c.    Statutory role of the civil servants d.    Discharge of delegated functions e.    Appointments/Recruitment to the civil services f.    Transfers and postings of civil servants The Concept of Neutrality Sardar Patel had made the following observations in the Constituent Assembly to support the continuance of the pre-independence civil service structure:- “It needs hardly to be emphasized that an efficient, discipline and contended civil service assured of its prospects as a result of diligent and honest work, is a sine-quanon of sound administration under democratic regime even more than under an authoritarian rule. Th e service must be above party and we should ensure that political considerations, either in its recruitment or in its discipline and control, are reduced to the minimum if not eliminated altogether.” Unfortunately, this vision of civil service neutrality no longer holds good. Changes in governments particularly at the state level often lead to wholesale transfer of civil servants. Political neutrality is no longer the accepted norm with many civil servants getting identified, rightly or wrongly, with a particular political dispensation. Th ere is a perception that officers have to cultivate and seek patronage from politicians for obtaining suitable positions even in the Union Government. As a result, the civil services in public perception are often seen as increasingly politicized. The Commission is of the view that the political neutrality and impartiality of the civil services needs to be preserved. Th e onus for this lies equally on the political executive and civil servants. The Commission in its Report on “Ethics in Governance” while examining the ethical framework for Ministers has recommended that a code of ethics for Ministers should inter-alia include the following: “Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the civil service and not ask the civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the duties and responsibilities of the civil servants.” As observed by Paul Appleby civil servants should not confuse ‘political neutrality’ with ‘programme neutrality’. At the stage of policy formulation, the role of civil servants is to render free and frank advice which should not be coloured by any political considerations. Once a policy or programme has been approved by the elected government, it is the duty of the civil servant to faithfully and enthusiastically see to its implementation. Not carrying out this task in the right spirit would amount to misconduct inviting appropriate sanctions. 17.5    Advisory Role of Civil Servants in Policy Making Rendering policy advice to the political executive is the most important “staff function” of the civil servant. Policy making is the ultimate responsibility of the Minister. After a policy is approved by the elected government, it is duty of the civil servant to implement such policy in the right earnest whether he/she agrees with it or not. At the same time, it is the duty of the civil servant to provide the factual basis, thorough analysis of all possible implications of any measure under consideration and free and frank advice, without fear or favour, at the stage of policy formulation. It is unfortunate that at times senior civil servants get bogged down in routine administrative decision making and are unable to contribute adequately to this crucial aspect of their functions. However, for civil servants to be able to provide appropriate policy inputs, they must acquire the necessary combination of a broad perspective of the sector as well as of the Government as a whole, combined with conceptual clarity and requisite knowledge. If a policy that is being formulated is perceived by the civil servant to be against public interest, his/her responsibility is to convince the political executive about the adverse implications of such a policy. However, if the political executive does not agree with such an advice, there is little that the civil servant can do other than putting his/her views clearly on record. It is for the other institutional mechanisms such as Parliament, the CAG, Judiciary and ultimately the electorate to hold the political executive to account for bad policy. In order to ensure that senior civil servants have adequate time to focus their attention on their ‘policy advice role’, the Commission is making detailed recommendations on separation of staff and line functions, in a separate report. 17.6    Statutory Role of the Civil Servants Civil servants are required to discharge statutory functions under various legislative enactments which may sometimes be quasi-judicial in nature. Th e role of the executive magistrate under the Cr. PC, the role of an Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act and of the SHO under the Cr.PC and the respective Police Acts are some examples of such functions. It has been observed that there is an increasing trend on the part of the senior functionaries both in the civil services as well as elected representatives including Ministers to interfere in such statutory functions. Acquiescence in the face of such interference is primarily the fault of the officer who has been entrusted with these statutory functions although those bringing such extraneous pressures should also be held to account. The Commission in its Report on “Ethics in Governance” while examining the definition of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has recommended that “abuse of authority unduly favouring or harming someone” and “obstruction of justice” should be classified as an offence under the Act. 17.7    Appointments/Recruitment to the Civil Services The Constitution of India provides for an independent Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and State Public Service Commissions (PSCs). It lays down that it shall be the duty of the Union and the State Public Service Commissions to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the Union and the services of the States respectively. However, while the UPSC enjoys an untarnished reputation for having developed a fair and transparent recruitment system, the same cannot be said for all the State PSCs. In addition, a large number of recruitments to various positions is done by departments of government and different organizations under their control both at the Union and the State government levels. Examples of such large scale recruitments which have often been the subject of complaints and controversies are recruitments to the posts of Police constables, teachers, bus-drivers and conductors etc. The Commission feels that it is essential to lay down certain principles/norms for such recruitments to avoid complaints of favouritism, nepotism, corruption and abuse of power that have often characterized these recruitment exercises. These principles are : i.    Well-defined merit-based procedure for recruitment to all government jobs ii.    Wide publicity and open competition for recruitment to all posts iii.    Minimisation, if not elimination, of discretion in the recruitment process iv. Selection primarily on the basis of written examination or on the basis of performance in existing public/board/university examination with minimum weightage to interview. 17.8    Postings and Transfers of Civil Servants The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution made the following observations regarding transfers and postings of civil servants: “Arbitrary and questionable methods of appointments, promotions and transfers of officers by political superiors also led to corrosion of the moral basis of its independence. Refurbishing of Personnel Administation – Scaling New Heights 279 It has strengthened the temptation in services to collusive practices with politicians to avoid the inconvenience of transfers and to gain advantages by ingratiating themselves to political masters. They would do the politicians’ biddings rather than adhere to rules. Lest the situation becomes more vicious, it is necessary that a better arrangement be conceived under the Constitution. Th e question of appointments, transfers and placements is not to be left to the discretion of the politicians or administrative bosses but be entrusted to independent and autonomous boards. Th e Commission, therefore, recommends that the questions of personnel policy including placements, promotions, transfers and fast-track advancements on the basis of forwardlooking career management policies and techniques should be managed by autonomous Personnel Boards for assisting the high level political authorities in making key decisions. Such civil service boards should be constituted under statutory provisions. Th ey should be expected to function like the UPSC. Reputed management experts from institutes of management, well known for their excellence, should be inducted into these boards to provide a broad based pool of expertise. Th e principle is not to take politics out of personnel policy but to make knowledge and information institutionally available to the political decision-makers on the basis of appropriate parliamentary legislation under Article 309. Th e sanctity of parliamentary legislation under Article 309 is needed to counteract the publicly known trends of the play of unhealthy and destabilizing influences in the management of public services in general and higher civil services in particular.” Arbitrary and motivated transfers of government servants which are not in public interest and good governance have become a matter of great concern particularly in some States although the position is somewhat better at the Union Government level. The Union Government has initiated several measures in order to ensure security of tenure to civil servants. Th e Rules governing the All India Services have been amended and provision made for fixation of tenures of posts encadred with the AIS. For example, the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1955, have been amended and a new clause inserted:115 “ 7(c) (i)    The Central Government, in consultation with the State Government or State Governments concerned, may determine the tenure of all or any of the cadre posts specified for the State concerned in item 1 of the Schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulation, 1955. (ii)    A cadre officer, appointed to any post for which the tenure has been so determined, shall hold the minimum tenure as prescribed except in the event of promotion, retirement, deputation outside the State or training exceeding two months. (iii)    An officer may be transferred before the minimum prescribed tenure only on the recommendation of a Committee on Minimum Tenure as specified in the Schedule annexed to these rules.” The tenure of several posts has been notified accordingly for many States. The Commission has tried to address this issue in the suggesting a mechanism for posting of officers and for fixation of tenures. Th e Commission would like to reiterate that the tenure of all posts above a certain level should be fixed in Government of India by making a provision in the new civil services law. State Governments should also take similar steps 17.9    Summary There is a need to safeguard the political neutrality and impartiality of the civil services. The onus for this lies equally on the political executive and the civil services. Th is aspect should be included in the Code of Ethics for Ministers as well as the Code of Conduct for Public Servants. The Commission would like to reiterate its recommendation made in its Report on “Ethics in Governance” while examining the definition of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein it has been recommended that “abuse of authority unduly favouring or harming someone” and “obstruction of justice” should be classified as an offence under the Act. 17.10    Self check exercisesTo see extent•    17.1,17.5 •    17.6,17.9 17.12    Suggested reading 1.    Maheshwari S.R. "Civil Service in Great Britain", Concept Publishing Company, 1976. 2.    Goel S.L. "Personnel Administration and Management", Deep and Deep publication, New Delhi, 2002. 3.    Palekar S.A. “Public Personnel administration”, ABD Publisher, New Delhi 2020. 4.    Kumar kar Sushant” public personnel Administration”, Kunal Books Publisher, 2018. 5.    Procter W. Arthur ”Principles of Public Personnel Administration” Forgotten Books Publication, 2022. 17.13    Terminal questions • Difference between Political and permanent executive. Unit-18Administrative Reforms since 1947: Critical Appraisal. Structure 18 .0. Learning Objectives 18.1 . Introduction 18.2    Administrative Reform In India 18.3    Reports on Indian Administration, 1946-97 18.4    The Administrative Reforms 18.5    Administrative Reforms Commission 18.6    Administrative Reforms in the States 18.7    Report of Administrative Reform Commission 18.8    Summary 18.9    Self check exercises 18.10    Glossary 18.11    Answer to self-check exercises 18.12    Suggested reading 18.0. Learning Objectives After going through this lesson, the student will be able to understand 18.1 . Introduction Morarji Desai was initially appointed the chairman of the First Administrative Reforms Commission, but later K. Hanumanthaiah was appointed at the post as Desai became the Deputy Prime Minister of India..ARC stands for Administrative Reforms Commission, a body appointed by the Government of India for reviewing the public administration system of India. The first ARC was established on January 5, 1966. The main aim of establishing administrative reforms in India is to promote government administrative agencies to implement public policies efficiently and bring in transformation in the society. Reports published by the Administrative Reforms Commission are called ARC Reports. The 1st ARC was set up in 1966 to examine the public administration of the country and make recommendations for reform and reorganisation. The 2nd ARC (2005) prepared a detailed blueprint to revamp the public administrative system. It submitted 15 reports to the Government covering areas like RTI, ethics in governance, local governance, terrorism, public administration, e-governance, financial management and so on. Since Independence, there have been about fifty Commissions and Committees at the Union Government level to look into what can be broadly characterized as administrative reforms. The First Administrative Reforms Commission set up in January 1966 was asked, in particular, to consider all aspects relating to the following subjects – •    The machinery of the Government of India and its procedures of work; •    The machinery for planning at all levels; •   Center-state relationship; •  Financial administration; •  Personnel administration; •  Economic administration; •    Administration at the state level; •   District administration; •    Agricultural administration; and •    Problems of redress of citizens grievances. 18.2    ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS IN INDIA The problem of administrative reforms in India is obviously a very difficult one, some of the most glaring defects of the existing administrative systems are: (1)    faults in administrative organisation and structure, (2)    delay in the despatch of business, (3)    inefficiency and (4)    lack of integrity or corruption. Other defects is diffusion of responsibility and the plethora of consultation before a decision is reached accompanied by a general lack of follow up and implementation. Last, but not the least important, issue faced by us today is that of the relationship between Ministers and civil servants. It is certain that no administration can successfully discharge its duties unless it is left along and allowed to implement the policies of the government. But experience shows during last 50 years there has been constant interference in the administration right from the top to the lowest level. Therefore, the civil servants are fast losing self-confidence and sense of responsibility and administrators do not want to do any original thinking at all. That is why the administrative reform is needed urgently. The question of administrative reforms has engaged the attention of the Government of India, State Governments, statesmen and administrators. Therefore, various attempts for reforming the administrative system have been made after independence. An impression has grown that the administration is immune to reforms and innovations and remains status-oriented rather than work-oriented. The abolition of the ICS privileges has not increased the responsiveness of the higher services to the need for change but only strengthened the bureaucratic hold of the IAS. The method of recruitment for the IAS has introduced a serious imbalance in the system and the UPSC examinations neither tests intellectual attainments sufficiently nor qualities of Initiative and leadership of the candidates and has made the service a preserve of the upper classes hailing from urban centres. 18. 3 Reports on Indian Administration, 1946-97 The central government was very much concerned with the matter and since 1947. appointed near about 30 committees/commissions to suggest administrative reforms, as listed below: 1.    Reorganisation of Central Government (Richard Tottenham), 1946. (This report is significant in understanding Independent India's public administration; hence, its enumeration here). 2.    Secretariat Reorganisation Committee (Girija Shankar Bajpai). 1947. 3.    Central Pay Commission (Srinivas Varadachariar), 1947. 4.    Economy Committee (KasturbatLalbhai), 1948. 5.    Reorganisation of the Machinery of Government (N.GopalaswamiAyyangar), 1949. 6.    Report on Public Administration (A.D.Gorwala), 1951. 7.    Report on the Efficient Conduct of State Enterprise (A.D.Gorwala), 1951. 8.    The Machinery of Government-Improvement of Efficiency (R.A.Gopalaswami), 1952. 9.    Report on Indian and State Administrative Services and Problems of district (V.T.Krishnamacharl), 1952. Administration 10.    Public Administration in India-Report of a Survey (Paul H. Appleby), 1953. 11.    Railway Corruption Enquiry Committee (J.B. Kriplani). 1955. 12.    Notes on Changes Necessary in System of Budgetary and Financial Control (Asoka Chanda), 1956. 13.    Re-examination of India's Administrative System with special reference to Administration of Government's Industrial and Commercial Enterprises (Paul H. Appleby), 1956. 14.    Public Service (Qualifications for Recruitment) Committee (A. RamaswamiMudaliar), 1956. 15.    Balwant Ral Mehta Committee on Community Projects and National Extension Service, 1957. 16.    Commission of Enquiry of Emoluments and Conditions of central Government Employees( jagannadha Das, 1959. 17.    Staff Welfare Review Committee (Fateh Singh), 1961. 18.    Committee on Prevention of Corruption (K.Santhanam), 1964. 19.    The Administrative Reforms Commission (Chairman, Morarji Desai & Late K. Hanumanthalya), 1966-70. 20.    Third Central Pay Commission (Raghubar Dayal), 1973. 21.    Committee on Recruitment Policy and Selection Methods (D.S. Kothari), 1976. 22.    Asok Mehta Committee on Panchayati Raj Institution, 1977. 23.    National Police Commission, 1977. 24.    Economic Administration Reforms (Chairman, L.K. Jha), 1981-85. Commission 25.    Fourth Central Pay Commission Report, 1983. 26.    Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations, 1983. 27.    Committee to Review the Existing Administrative Arrangements for Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation Programmes (CAARD) (Chairman, G.V.K. Rao), 1985-88. 28.    Committee to Review the Scheme of Civil Services Examinations (Satish Chandra), 1988-1990. 29.    Dr. Raja J. Chelliah Committee on the Tax Reforms, 1991-92. 30.    Fifth Pay Commission Report, April 9, 1994 January 30, 1997. 18. 4The Administrative Reforms is a continuous process, therefore, is better to study it in the historical perspective. The attempts for administrative reforms in our country, for the sake of study, can be divided into the following periods: •    First Phase: 1947-1964 A period of historical building, till the death of Pt. Nehru. •    Second Phase: 1964-1976 A Period of Comprehensive Reforms and era of Administrative Reforms Commission till the Congress ruled at the Centre. •    Third Phase: 1977-1990 A period of new ideas and reforms •    Fourth Phase 1990-onwards. A period of privatization and Decentralization First Phase (1947-1964) In July 1947 a Secretariat Reorganisation Committee, which functioned like an officer's shortage committee, was appointed. The government set up, in 1948, the Economy Committee to review the increase in the civil expenditure of the central government since 1938-39 and to make recommendations for the promotion of true economy in the administration by the elimination of unnecessary wasteful or extravagant expenditure, under the Chairmanship of KasturbhaiLalbhai a prominent industrialist. It was followed by the government of India Reorganisation of Machinery of Government Report in 1949 by N. GopalaswamyAyyangar. His major recommendations was on the grouping of central governmental ministries into four bureau: was primarily designed to secure 'co-ordination of policy and planning, the establishment of a common Financial Advisory Organisation and a common Central Administrative Office for the efficient performance of common services and administrative coordination. Administrative innovations devised by Ayyangar were perhaps far ahead of the time, however, the Ministry of Economic and Defence Coordination was a belated vindication of Ayyangar's rationalism and foresight. The O & M division originally suggested by Ayyangar, was also set up in 1954. The Planning Commission which was set up in March 1950. asked A.D. Gorwala in July 1951 a retired administrator, to assess how far the existing administrative machinery and methods were adequate to meet the requirements of planned development. Gorwala's report served as the basis for the formulation of certain important proposals for the reform of administration, which were later included in the First Five Year Plan. The two reports by Paul H.Appleby, submitted in 1953 and 1956 to the Government of India, had a significant influence on thinking about administrative reforms in government circles as well as the educated public, His first report 'Public Administration In India: Report of a Survey, dealt more with changes in the basic principles and concepts including the Indian administrative organisation and practice and less with the details of the administrative machinery and methods. In his second report 'Re- examination of India's Administrative System he made several suggestions for streamlining organisation, work procedures, recruitment, training and relations between Administration and Parliament, administration and Planning Commission, and Administration and the Comptroller and Auditor General. In 1954 Asoka Chanda submitted his report entitled, "Notes on Changes Necessary in the system of Budgetary and Financial Control and in Other Methods" to eliminate delays in execution of projects Chanda recommended greater measure of delegation, of all India services, adoption of office-oriented system creation of all India services, adoption of office-oriented system of functioning, constitution of a common service divided vertically into departments to provide for specialised training in the different spheres of governmental activity. In 1962 the government set up a Committee under the Chairmanship of K.Santhanam, known as the Committee on Prevention of Corruption, to examine the problem of corruption in government. The Committee submitted its report in 1964. In 1963 while conducting the mid-term appraisal of the Third Plan, it was found that the pace of economic growth was slow, therefore, Central and State Governments were directed to enhance the administrative efficiency for speedy implementation of development programmes. The review resulted in setting up a new Department of Administrative Reforms in the Home Ministry in March 1964 and O & M division was transferred from Cabinet Secretariat to this department. In 1965, Bureau of Public Enterprises was set up in the Ministry of Finance for better management of public enterprises. In September 1985 it became the Department of Public Enterprises under the Ministry of Industry. As already mentioned Government of India appointed number of other Committees and Commissions to make suggestions for administrative improvement. Apart from these Committees, there have been five Pay Commissions which the Central Government set up in 1946, 1958, 1971-72, 1982-83 and 1996. Fifth Pay Commission's reform proposals are important and will be discussed in the end of the Unit. The Planning Commission has also been recommending changes in the public administration of the country. Each Five Year Plan contains a Unit on public administration. Planning Commission determines the nature of the administrative machinery to secure the successful implementation of the Plan." The Estimated Committee of Parliament also covers within its ambit the reform of the machinery of government and its personnel. Some of the reports are devoted entirely to questions of administrative reform. Mention in this connection must be made of its second report on Reorganisation of the Secretariat and Departments of the Government of India (1950-51), Ninth Report on Administrative, Financial and other Reforms (1953-54) and Ninety-third Report on Public Services (1965-66). The discussion may be summed up by saying that government took several steps as a result of recommendations of these Committees. The special Reorganisation Unit was reorganised in 1958 to incorporate the use of work study techniques for determining work loads and staff complements and overhauling procedures. Two high level institutions, the Central O & M division and Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), were set up in 1954. In August 1960 Administrative Vigilance Division was set up in the Ministry of Home Affairs to render assistance and to coordinate the activities of the Central Government in their campaign against corruption in the Public Services. The Government of India set up in March 1964 the Department of Administrative Reforms in the Ministry of Home Affairs now it is under a separate Ministry known as the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Pensions and Public Grievances to deal with problems of reform. reorganisation and modernisation of administration at all levels so as to make it an efficient and sensitive instrument for carrying out the task of economic development and social welfare and for achieving the general social objectives which the country has set and the need for setting up of the agency for evolving a machinery for the redressal of grievances of citizens arising from unsound procedures, delays, lack of courtesy and consideration in official dealing. The first and second Pay Commissions which submitted their reports in 1947-48 and 1956-57 respectively made several important observations concerning public administration. Many suggestions were made by the Estimates Committee and other Committees of the Parliament. State Governments also appointed number of committees which suggested administrative reforms. The O&M Division was meant basically to provide leadership for cooperative effort to improve the administration. It encourages civil servants to use the scientific method to find out what is wrong and what are the remedies. The Ministry of Finance also set up a Special Reorganisation unit in the Department of Expenditure to assess the requirement of Staff in various Ministries/Departments through work measurement techniques. This Unit also became a permanent agency for reviewing the organisation and procedure of the Government of India and suggested improvement in the existing methods of works. Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) The Institute was set up as a result of Paul H. Appleby's recommendation. It runs a number of training courses for the public administrators and conducts researches on the subject matters of public administration. It publishes the Indian Journal of Public Administration which provides very good material for the implementation of Public Administration. Several other developments took place during this period. On the recommendation of Santhanam Committee in 1964 a Central Vigilance Commission was established to inquire into the cases of corruption by higher civil servants. Like wise on the recommendation of the Second Pay Commission (1957), a Whitley type Machinery for redressal of grievances of Civil Servants was set up by the Government. In November 1963, as a presume of Parliament Das Commission was appointed to inquire into the corruption charges against Pratap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister of Punjab. In March 1964 the O & M Division was converted into a full fledged department of Administrative Reforms in the Ministry of Home Affairs. The department provided impetus to the administrative reforms. Second phase (1965-1976) Adminstrative Reforms, until the setting up of the Administrative Reforms Commission, have been carried out mostly in the spirit, style and shape of improvisations. Those several Committees that have been set up to report on administrative reforms have been content to suggest some alterations here and some additions there. Few have gone deeper and examined the whole system of administration as such : almost all have been the prisoners of the existing framework and the system that underscores it."10 K.Hanumanthaiya while commenting on this period rightly pointed out, "during the last twenty years, there were only adjustments and no reforms in the administration." Thus, this 11 period is characterised by "too ready a disposition on the part of the government to appoint Committees but on equal measure of apathy or even indifference to profit from their labours."12 The government even delayed the implementation of the recommendations made by the Committees. 18. 5 Administrative Reforms Commission (1966-70) The Resolution of setting up the Administrative Reforms Commission, issued in 1964, said that "It will give consideration to the need for ensuring the highest standards of efficiency and integrity in the public services, and for making public administration a fit instrument for carrying out the social and economic policies of the Government and achieving social and economic goals of development as also one which is responsive to people." The Commission was asked to consider the following: (1)    The machinery of the Government of India and its procedures of work; (ii)    The machinery for planning at all levels; (iii)    Centre-State Relationships; (iv)    Financial Administration: (v)    Personnel Administration: (vi)    Economic Administration: (vii)    Administration at the State level: (viii)    District Administration: (ix)    Agricultural Administration: and (x)    Problems of redress of citizens' Thus, the Commission was asked on such a vast array of subjects to examine and report. It is an example of all-embracing attempt at reform. The Commission submitted 20 reports for the reforms in various fields of administration in India. The Commission has made, in all, 581 recommendations and suggestions. In the words of Shri Hanumanthaya government has accepted 80% of recommendations made by the Commission. As the Commission also explored areas within the states' jurisdiction, the central government evidently lacks direct authority to take or compel action on them it may bring such recommendations to the notice of the States and at best, use moral pressure in favour of them. Evern recommendations directly concerning the centre broadly fall into two categories from the angle of implementation. Some recommendations concern formal structure and procedures of work. The other category calls for restructuring of rules, behaviour and attitudes. Which in turn category calls for restructuring of rules, behaviour and attitudes, which, in turn, ultimately rests on the inner urges and orientations of the elective and permanent administrators. A large number of structure-and-procedure based recommendations are rather mild, emphasizing as they do only minor re-adjustments. modifications and realignments. Even after taking into account all these factors, one cannot escape the painful conclusion that the record of acceptance of the Commission's recommendations has been discouraging and disheartening." During the period 1979-80, due to ARC recommendations and efforts of the Central reform agency, enormous changes in administrative structure, system and procedures took place. On the recommendation of the ARC, the department of personnel was set up. department of administrative reforms was restructured for better performance, system of secretariat working was improved by introducing desk officer system. performance budgeting was introduced by all government ministries: maximum possible powers were delegated, and the working of Bureau of Public Enterprises was improved after the recommendations of the ARC Report on Public Sector. The department of administrative reforms, carried out many studies relating to management such as organisational structure, methods and procedures, Information system, records management, employees satisfaction, use of modern office machines, equipment and financial administration, etc. These studies improved the working of the offices and attention was paid for citizens satisfaction. All the States set up the department of personnel and administrative reform at the State level along with State Bureau of Public Enterprises, during the 70s. In 1976 Audit and Accounts were separated for administrative improvements. However, the Emergency in 1975-77, gave a rude shock to the image of Public Administration when the credibility of the policy making and policy executing levels suffered. Third Phase (1977-1990) After the internal emergency, elections were held in March 1977 and the Janata Party came in power at the centre. Janata Party government appointed various commissions to point out the Emergency excesses and no tangible improvement took place in the administration. Again in 1980 Congress party came in power and reform process started. The Fazal Committee (1980-82) on Public Enterprises also felt the need of accountability in Publice Sector. The Jha Commission (EARC 1981-85) in its report on 'accountability' stressed the need of accountability and laid emphasis on performance, and results rather than rules and procedures. Both the Fazal Committee and Jha Commission suggested the changes in organisations relating to clear-cut definition of their goals and objectives, delegation of powers, system of performance appraisal, with a system of reward and punishment, etc. As a follow up action on the recommendations of these two committees the MPI and DPAR took concrete steps to institutionalise accountability in the government by introducing annual action plan (AAP). The AAP would mention the key activities/functions and the responsibility centres at the level of Joint Secretary by name. Grievances and Pensions was set up, with three departments namely, department of Personnel and Training, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances and Department of Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare. This Ministry was placed directly under the Prime Minister assisted by a Minister of State. During this period more emphasis was laid on Work Culture and highest priority was given to performance, results and outcomes. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, addressing the nation on January 5, 1985 announced several measures to equip administration for social and economic transformation. These measures included decentralisation, accountability, effective machinery for redressal of public grievances and prompt courteous service to the citizens. In September 1985, a new Ministry of programme implementation was created under the charge of Prime Minister. The Ministry mainly coordinated all poverty alleviation programmes and made administration more responsive. The Ministry of Programmes Implementation (MPI) introduced the concept of Management by Objective (MBO). According to this a task plan along with time frame for each task has to be prepared and allocated to the individual officers and units to fix specific responsibility. Monitoring of the target achievements is done every month at the level of Secretary and MPI. new system of MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) was adopted at the direction of the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi for public enterprises. This is an annual action plan drawn up by public enterprises and agreed upon between the PEs and administration, ministries/departments." To match the responsibility, powers have been delegated by the Ministries to the lower level functionaries by Finance Ministry to administrative ministries, so that responsibility for the performance can be pinpointed. Likewise inter-ministerial consultations took long time to arrive at any decision: to improve the situation and avoid delay improved procedures have been evolved for speedy decisions. In such cases time has been fixed and within that period the Ministry/department has to send his comments otherwise it will be presumed that the concerned Ministry/department has nothing to comment. The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances has also taken several steps to improve administrative reforms. The department has prepared a scheme for modernisation of government offices to make them model office. through functional layouts, better services to the public and removal of public grievances and cost effective management. All the offices have been given separate budgets for purchase of modern equipments such as photocopiers, electronic type-writers and computers. To increase productivity, concept of work improvement team has been introduced. The scheme seeks to generate higher employee moral, improved productivity and reduction in cost through participation at the grassroot level. This Railways, scheme has been introduced in the departments which come in contact with large number of people daily such as posts, DDA, health, labour, banking etc. Other measures include lump-sum payment of road tax for personal vehicles like cars scooters and motor-cycles, new telephone number through electronic exchanges easy to remember, Computerised reservation facilities for rail reservations, paper work has been reduced and several other procedures have been simplified. Attention has also been paid for speedy removal of public grievances by setting and strengthening grievances removal machinery. A senior officer in each Ministry/department is designated as Director of Grievance for speedy disposal of complaints. Personnel reforms were also proposed during 80s and a major step in this field was introduction of compulsory training programme for IAS officers. WITH SEX to nine years' service, 10-16 years and 16-20 years in regard to programme implementation, management concepts. decision making techniques, policy planning and analysis respectively." The 15 months National management education programme was also devised for young civil servants and managers of public and private sector organisations with the cooperation of All IITs and the Xavier Labour Relations Institute. Jamshedpur and Management Institute Gurgaon (Haryana). Main Characteristics of Third phase In this three steps were taken for comprehensive administrative reforms. In this period Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) was appointed, which examined our administrative system comprehensively and put forth 581 recommendations in all for the administrative reforms. Second. the government accepted the recommendation of creating 'Ombudsman' like institution 'Lokpal' and 'Lokayukta' in India to deal with public grievances and Bill is pending before the Parliament for the establishment of 'Lokpal, while 'Lokayuktas have been appointed in many States. Third, during this phase, the Government had created 'Administrative Tribunals' for expeditious disposal of the grievances of the public servants. Fourth, the central government have introduced performance budgeting since 1970-71. Fifth, during this period administrative reforms were more management oriented. A greater emphasis was laid on management and administrative reforms began to be viewed as management intensive exercise. During this period behavioural approach which Insists on human element in administration also emerged. The concept emanated from the business schools which remained highly influenced by the American thought. Sixth, for the improvement of civil servants, greater emphasis was laid on the institutional training. Of course, in India training of civil servants has a longer history, but a new emphasis was given in 1966 by creating a separate training division in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Now this training division is a part of the department of the Personnel Administrative Reforms and Training of the Ministry of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Public Grievances and Pensions. The training programmes have been diversified and have grown in numbers. But the emphasis on training has been criticised on the grounds that, the contribution of training to the over all. the grounds that, the contribution of training to the over all efficiency of the organisation is limited, civil servants have no sufficient motivation to take training seriously, trainers are not selected properly and training material sometimes is also not upto the mark. Fourth Phase 1990-onwards This period is marked by minority unstable governments at the centre with weak political leadership. The process of liberalisation, started during this period has paved the way for removal of controls and delicensing in Industrial policy. The new Economic Policy since 1991 has simplified the process of industrialisation in the country. Moreover, in this period steps 18 have been taken to decentralise the powers through 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments Acts, 1992, which have constitutionalised Panchayati Raj and Municipal bodies. We have already discussed this aspect in detail in relevant Units. The Government of India constituted a Tax Reforms Committee in 29 August 1991, under the Chairmanship of Dr. Raja J. Chelliah to examine the structure of direct and indirect taxes. The committee, on its interim report submitted in December 1991: observed that "certain important administrative and policy issues, however, deserve brief mention in this interim report because of the urgent need for initiating suitable action in regard to them. First and foremost among them is the need to tone up the administration. No amount of tax reform, rationalisation or simplification can substantially improve tax compliance, unless there is a substantial Improvement in public perception regarding the efficiency, technical competence, integrity and ability of tax authorities to relentlessly pursue and punish tax evaders, without political or other interference." The committee suggested that "for this, the morale of the work force should improve. The Government should recognise the paramount importance of the Revenue Departments and should spare no efforts in improving their condition of service, technical 19. skills and work environment. The committee submitted its final report on August 25, 1992 to the Finance Minister and made wide-ranging recommendations. 18.6 Administrative Reforms in the States At the State level, many States have also appointed Administrative Reforms Commissions/Committees. For example, Kerala Administrative Reforms Commission, 1958 Administrative Enquiry Committee, Orissa, 1958; Andhra Pradesh Administrative Reforms Enquiry Committee, 1964 Punjab Administrative Reforms Committee, 1964: Rajasthan Administrative Reforms Committee 1966 MP. Administrative Reforms Commission 1969; Tamil Nadu Administrative Reforms Commission 1973; and West Bengal Administrative Reformis Committee 1982. As a result of recommendations of these Commissions/ Committees several states have introduced reforms in their administration. Featuresof Administrative Reform The administrative reforms in India has passed through many stages and during the process acquired some features, Important of them are: (1)    In India the main sources of reforms are mainly three, (1)In India the main sources of first some reforms have come from the political process such as re-organisation of States or public inquiries against the Chief Ministers or a political scandal. Some reforms have been Initiated by the reform committees/commissions; i.e., ARC. While some have been initiated by the central agency such as Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. (ii)    The Union Government has played the leadership role In the field of Administrative reforms in the country for all the three levels-Central, State and Local. This has happened mainly because of Centralised Planning. The Union Government has set up several Committees on the State list subjects such as, Balwant Rai Mehta Committee 1957 to suggest ways for people's participation and Panchayati Raj. V.T. Krishnamachari Committee report on Indian and State Administrative Services and problems of District Administration, Asok Mehta Committee on Panchayati Raj Institutions, etc.Mehta Committee on Panchayati Raj Institutions, etc.. Even the ARC also gave report on State Administration. (iii)    Academic and Research Institutions in the country have not made any significant attempt to provide leadership in the field of administrative reforms. Even IIPA has not contributed much in this field. (iv)    NGOs, Voluntary organisations and Citizens Forum etc. have also not taken active interest in the field of administrative reforms. Overall Impact Shorting Of Administrative Reform First, though a number of committees and commissions examined and made recommendation for reform but the problems of field administration have not been examined in detail. Not only this the reports containing recommendations of committees and commissions appointed from time to time either not read or not considered for years. Second, the recommendations of committees and commissions were many but their implementation is very poor; this is because of our bureaucratic culture which frustrates implementation of reforms leading to any change . Thirdmmprenentation of reforms leading to any change. Third, administrative reform is a low priority for political leadership. They take interest in short term changes here and there and not in long term administrative reforms. Fourth, lack of integrity and prevalence of speed money for any work in administration has also slowed down the process of administrative reform. The issues such as administrative morality, public accountability. democratisation and decentralisation of administration and openness of administrative actions, etc. are beyond the Vocabulary of administrative reforms." Fifth, neglect of 23 democratic decentralisation efforts during last four/five decades inspite of Balwant Rai Mehta Committee (1959). Ashok Mehta Committee (1978) and G.V.K.Rao Committee's (1985) recommendations for democratic decentralisation. Only recently Parliament (1992) has passed Constitutional Amendment Act Committee (1978) and G.V.K.Rao Committee's (19 85) recommendations for democratic decentralisation. Only recently Parliament (1992) has passed Constitutional Amendment Act (73rd) for establishment of Panchayati Raj in the country for decentralisation purposes. Sixth, the efforts for ministerial/departmental accountability through the system of annual action plans (AAP), launched with great zeal, were diluted as the time passed. The number and quality of AAPs deteriorated very fast with the passage of time. AAPS and performance budget have become only rituals. Thus, civil servants have evaded any accountability for their decisions and actions. MBO techniques and MOU extended to public enterprises both have not been taken in right earnest. The success of administrative reforms depends on top politicians and bureaucratic support, but both are busy in furtherance of their mutual interest and hardly find time to pay attention for administrative reforms. The politics in the country is unstable after 1989 and bureaucrats hardly provide leadership for administrative reforms. What has been lacking in our administrative reform efforts in the last 50 years is a congruence between strategy, structure and substance. 18.7    Report of Administrative Reform Commission The Commission submitted 20 Reports in all, These 20 Reports contained 537 major recommendations. Based on the inputs received from various administrative Ministries a report indicating the implementation position was placed in Parliament in November 1977. A-List of the recommendations of the first ARC that are relevant to this Report are outlined below: 1.    Need for specialization: The first ARC recognized the need for specialization as the functions of Government had become diversified. A method of selection for senior management posts in functional areas and outside functional areas was laid down. 2.    Unified Grading structure: A unified grading structure based on qualifications and the nature of duties and responsibilities was suggested. 3.    Recruitment: On this subject, the ARC recommended: o A single competitive examination for the Class I services, with the age limit, raised to 26 years. o    Lateral entry to technical posts at senior levels. o    Direct recruitment to Class II services to be discontinued. o    A simple objective type test to be conducted for the recruitment of clerical staff. o    Recruitment to Central Government posts in certain sectors to be made from among the State Government employees. 4.    Recruitment Agencies: A new procedure for the appointment of members of the UPSC and the State Public Service Commission was suggested. ii. Setting up of Recruitment Boards for selection of clerical staff was recommended 5.    Training: a national policy on Civil Service Training to be devised. 6.    Promotions: Detailed guidelines for promotion were outlined. 7.    Conduct and Discipline: Reforms in disciplinary inquiry proceedings and the setting up of Civil Service Tribunals were suggested. 8.    Service Conditions: The Commission also gave recommendations on matters related to overtime allowances, voluntary retirement, exit mechanism, the quantum of pension, government holidays, incentives and awards to be given on timely completion of projects, and establishing work norms for various posts that may be reviewed by the Staff Inspection Unit 18.8    Summary The main Summary of establishing administrative reforms in India is to encourage government administrative agencies to implement beneficial policies for the public efficiently and bring modifications to society.Administrative Reforms in India are a political process developed to adapt the relationships between powers of the Government and other elements in a society or within the bureaucracy itself.Since Independence, there have been about fifty Commissions and Committees at the Union Government level to look into what can be broadly characterized as administrative reforms. 18.9    Answer to Self-check exercises To see extent a) 18.1,18.5 b) 18.6,18.7 18.10    Glossary Administrative Reform: Administrative reform is a political process designed to adjust the relationships between a bureaucracy and other elements in a society, or within the bureaucracy itself. A different use of the phrase has grown out of efforts to assist in the modernisation of new and developing nations. 18.12    Suggested reading 1.    Gerald E.Calden, Administrative. Reform, Chicago: Aldine Publishing House, 1969, p.8. 2.    Ibid., p.9. 3.    John Montgomery. "Source of Bureaucratic Reform: A Topology of Purpose and Politics," in Ralph Braibanti (Ed.). Political and Administrative Development, Durham, Duke University Press, 1969. 4.    S.R. Maheshwari, Theories and Concepts in Public Administration, New Delhi, Allied Publishers Limited, 1991, p. 143. 5.    S.G.Barve, The Larger Political Context of Administrative Reforms". LJ.P.A. JulySeptember 1966, p.353 18.13    Terminal questions •    What are the major administrative reforms in India •    What are Administrative Reforms in India? Unit-19 INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS Structure 19.0. Learning Objectives 19.1 . Introduction 19.2    Australia 19.3    The United Kingdom 18.4    France 19.5    Japan 19.6    Lessons Learnt from International Experience Experience 19.7    Summary 19.8    Glossary 19.9    Answer to self-check exercises 19.10    Suggested reading 19.0.    Learning Objectives After going through this lesson, the student will be able to understand 19.1    IntroductionPublic Service Reforms in Other Countries Several fundamental changes have occurred since the mid-1970s in the civil services of most countries across the globe. Governments have sought to reshape rigid, hierarchical nineteenth-century bureaucracies into more flexible, decentralised, citizen-responsive civil services, compatible with late twentieth century technological and economic requirements.13 In some of these countries, reforms have been sweeping, representing programmes of radical, systemic transformation. Some other countries have pursued strategies of incremental improvements in specific aspects of the functioning of the civil service while conserving the basic core of their administrative structure. The experience of the countries that is discussed in this Unit forms a continuum of change in this spectrum, with New Zealand, Australia and the UK, at the systemic, reformist end while the Asian cases, Japan and Singapore have taken more incrementalism approaches. This Unit tries to analyse these approaches and extrapolate lessons that may be learnt and adopted as appropriate in the Indian context. 19.2    AustraliaBackground Australia experienced, during the 1970s, declining international competitiveness and mounting fiscal deficits that translated into substantial foreign and public debts by the early 1980s. In 1983, the Australian Labour Party (ALP) was elected to power by a slim margin. It introduced wide-ranging reforms seeking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the public sector and its accountability to the legislature. Th e reforms, it is stated, aimed to achieve 1.    A strong budgetary position through expenditure restraint and concentration on core business; 2.    A devolved financial, employment, and workplace relations framework that allows greater flexibility and places greater responsibility on individual agencies to develop strategies to meet their particular business needs; and 3.    A range of incentives to ensure that managers manage for results, by focusing on outputs and developing indicators to measure performance in terms of outcomes for clients. Public sector reforms in Australia came through two new Acts. The Financial Management and Accountability Act provided the accountability and accounting framework. Under the new arrangements, the chief executives of the agencies are given greater flexibility and autonomy in their financial management, they are also required to promote efficient, effective and ethical use of public resources. Th e other one was the Public Service Act, 1999. Th e purpose of the Act was that the Australian Public Service (APS) should be enabled to operate efficiently, competitively and in line with best practices in the overseas civil services and the private sector. Th e Act provided a succinct message about the expectations of a civil service within a democratic system of governance appropriate for the twenty-fi rst century. Th e Act sought to: •    set up an apolitical civil service which is efficient and effective in serving the government and the Australian public; •    provide a legal framework for the effective and fair employment, management and leadership of APS employees; and •    establish rights and obligations of APS employees. Th e main features of the Act are: •    For the first time, the public service law contained a declaration of APS values (fifteen in number) with specific reference to political impartiality, maintenance of the highest ethical standards, accountability for actions and responsibilities to the government of the day. •    A legally enforceable code of conduct setting out the standards of behaviour expected of those working in the public service. •    Specific provisions to affirm the merit principle, prohibiting patronage and favouritism. •    Giving all the rights, duties and powers of an employer to the heads of the agencies, with authority to engage, terminate and determine the employment terms in respect of their APS employees. •    Creating the office of the Merit Protection Commissioner with independent review and inquiry powers. Administration of the Public Services Act is the responsibility of the Public Service Commissioner whose functions include: •    Developing, promoting, reviewing and evaluating APS employment policies and practices. •    Facilitating continuous improvement in people management throughout the civil service. •    Coordinating and supporting training and career development opportunities throughout the APS. •    Contributing to and fostering leadership in the APS. The Australian Public Service Values and Accountability The values make specific reference to the broader accountability obligations of the APS. Section 10 (1) (e) of the Act stipulates that the APS is accountable for its actions within the framework of ministerial accountability to the government, the legislature and the Australian public. Th e values also underline the requirement of the APS to be responsive to the government-of-the-day in providing frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice and in implementing the government’s policies. Th e provisions of the Act recognise that the government and its ministers determine the public interest in terms of policies and programme priorities, and civil servants advise on and implement their decisions within the requirements of the legal framework. Th e Act also provides for a Management Advisory Committee to advise the government on significant issues relating to management of the APS and to be a forum for considering major management activities within the APS. The Financial Management and Accountability Act, 1997 provides the accountability framework in which the Chief Executives of the agencies are given greater flexibility and autonomy in their management of the agencies to promote efficient, effective and ethical use of public resources. Th e responsibility for staffing the civil service has been devolved from the central departments to the agencies that constitute the APS, and the various authorities and government business enterprises operating outside the core public service. Th e central departments have become advisors and facilitators. Agency heads have all the employment powers including the hire and fire of employees and the setting of remuneration and the terms and conditions of employment. These powers are exercised within the framework of the APS values together with the code of conduct for all APS employees. Th e values framework along with enhanced accountability for the performance of the agencies balances the devolution of powers. Meritocracy One of the core principles of APS employment is recruitment and advancement on the basis of merit. Merit in the Australian context means •    Open advertising to ensure that all eligible applicants in the Australian community have a reasonable opportunity to apply for APS employment •    The selection procedure is transparent and seen to be applied fairly to all applicants •    The assessment process is capable of matching the qualities of the applicant to the qualities genuinely required for the job •    There is no patronage or favouritism and no ministerial interference in individual personnel decisions. Senior Executive Service A Senior Executive Service (SES), the leadership cadre of the APS, was created in 1984 to make the civil service at senior levels more open, mobile and competitive, and to achieve a greater degree of management leadership in development and placement of senior staff . The objective of the legislation that created the SES was to reshape the cadre of senior civil servants into a more unified and cohesive group responsible for higher-level policy advice and managerial and professional responsibilities. All SES vacancies are open to applicants from outside the civil service as well as to serving civil servants. Selection arrangements for the SES operate under a stricter framework than those for the non-SES civil servants, the requirement being that each vacancy be advertised in external newspapers and that each SES selection committee includes an agreed representative of the Public Service Commissioner who must report back at the end of the process that the exercise has satisfied all the requirements of the Act. Like all other APS civil service positions, decision on appointment to the SES by the head of the agency are not, by law, subject to directions by the Ministers. Agency Heads As stipulated in the Public Service Act, 1999, agency heads include both Secretaries to the Government and the heads of agencies with executive, advisory, research and statutory functions. Th e Departmental Secretaries are responsible to their minister both for departmental management and for advising the minister on all matters relating to the department. Agency heads are responsible to the minister for administration of the ministries. Since 1994, Secretaries of Departments have been appointed for a fixed term by the Prime Minister for a period up to fi ve years. Th e Public Service Commissioner advises the PM on the selection of the departmental Secretary. Heads of agencies are selected and appointed for a period up to fi ve years by the minister-in-charge of the agency, after advertising for the vacancy in the press. In most cases, the Minister consults the PM or the Cabinet before making such appointment. In 1999, the government introduced performance assessment for departmental Secretaries and agency heads. Th e PM determines the assessment for each Secretary after receiving advice from the Secretary of his/her own department and the Public Service Commissioner. Assessment of the agency head is made by the minister concerned on advice from the Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Public Service Commissioner, and usually, after consultation with the Secretary of the department concerned. Th ere are no required criteria for assessment, though the areas generally considered are meeting the government’s objectives for the agency, policy advice to the minister, management of the agency, leadership and promoting APS values. Secretaries and agency heads are eligible for annual performance bonuses not exceeding 15 per cent of their remuneration on the basis of these assessments. Performance Management In recent years, all APS agencies have developed and implemented performance management systems. As a result of the public sector reforms of the 1990s which focused on eff ectiveness and achieving of organizational objectives, the legislative framework that followed provided the heads of the agencies with opportunities to pursue results and to tailor their approaches for managing performance to suit the needs of their organizations. Th e legislative framework also required each agency to link improvements in pay and employment conditions to productivity and to report annually to government on achievement of outputs and expenditure against Programme Budgeting Statements under an outcomes and outputs framework. The legislative framework does not set out how performance management is to be implemented in individual agencies, but each agency is expected to: •    have the organizational capacity, flexibility and responsiveness necessary to achieve the outcomes expected •    have a culture of achievement, planning time and priorities to deliver the intended result •    report on the effectiveness of the outputs of the agencies •    demonstrate that resource priorities match agreed outcomes •    have a fair and open management system that covers all APS employees, guides salary movement, is linked to organisational and business goals and the maintenance of the legislated values, and provides each employee with a clear statement of performance expectations and an opportunity to comment on those expectations. The current challenges in the Australian Government are seen to be improving the credibility of the process, greater staff involvement, better feedback and recognition strategies and managing under-performance. Many agencies are now focusing on improving their performance management system to integrate it with their business and workforce planning by: •    clarifying performance objectives and linking individual and business plans with organizational plans • periodic performance appraisal of individual and team performance against achievements and behaviour linked to the values •    recognising and rewarding performance •    counselling and effectively managing poor performance •    learning and development to build individual and organizational capability •    evaluating the contribution of individual and organizational performance The Australian Government now puts great emphasis on managing under The legislative framework does not set out how performance management is to be implemented in individual agencies, but each agency is expected to: •    have the organizational capacity, flexibility and responsiveness necessary to achieve the outcomes expected •    have a culture of achievement, planning time and priorities to deliver the intended result •    report on the effectiveness of the outputs of the agencies •    demonstrate that resource priorities match agreed outcomes •    have a fair and open management system that covers all APS employees, guides salary movement, is linked to organisational and business goals and the maintenance of the legislated values, and provides each employee with a clear statement of performance expectations and an opportunity to comment on those expectations. The current challenges in the Australian Government are seen to be improving the credibility of the process, greater staff involvement, better feedback and recognition strategies and managing under-performance. Many agencies are now focusing on improving their performance management system to integrate it with their business and workforce planning by: •    clarifying performance objectives and linking individual and business plans with organizational plans • periodic performance appraisal of individual and team performance against achievements and behaviour linked to the values •    recognising and rewarding performance •    counselling and effectively managing poor performance •    learning and development to build individual and organizational capability •    evaluating the contribution of individual and organizational performance The Australian Government now puts great emphasis on managing under Outcomes/Outputs Framework In April 1997, the Australian government decided to put in place a management framework that would manage for results by developing robust indicators to assess the performance of the government departments in terms of outcomes for clients. In the new framework, the reporting on programmes identifies what has been done and what services have been delivered. Reporting on outcomes identifies what results have been achieved by delivering those services. The essential purpose of the outcomes/outputs framework is to answer three questions: •    What does the government want to achieve? (these are outcomes) •    How does the government want to reach those achievements? (these are the outputs) •    How does the government know if it is succeeding? (these are the indicators) Outcomes are the key results the government seeks to achieve, and define for each agency the purpose of their activities. Typically, they are at a higher (more aggregated) level than the schemes and programmes. Outputs are discrete activities or a set of activities, a product or a service, performed by an agency as a part of achieving its outcomes Agencies are required to specifically cost their outputs against planned outcomes and identify performance indicators and targets. More importantly, budgetary appropriations are made at the outcomes level. Outcomes and supporting outputs form the basis of an agency’s operating budget and reporting framework. Th e outcomes/outputs framework focuses on the outputs that an agency is producing and their contribution to the outcomes set by the government and is aimed at assisting the tracking of results and progress towards targets. Th e output component of the framework also facilitates tracking and benchmarking of the process and to that extent is an important contributor to improved efficiency. Gains of the Reforms It has been stated that the reforms in Australia have improved the information available to civil servants for discharging their accountability and have enhanced the concern with outcomes and effectiveness of programmes than just with financial outputs. Public enterprises in Australia have improved their performance significantly under a regime of autonomy and professional management. After 1980, the annual growth rate has been 3% which is reasonably high considering that Australia falls in the category of high per capita income group of countries that have collectively been growing at about 2.5% per annum. 19.3 The United Kingdom Prime Minister Harold Wilson constituted a Committee headed by Lord Fulton to examine the structure, recruitment, management, including training of the Home Civil Service. Th e Committee identified the need for a professional approach to management and better use of staff with appropriate skill and training. Th e most important recommendation of the Committee was to suggest an accountable system of management. Acting on the recommendations of the Fulton Committee, the Government initiated a number of reform measures in the 1980s and 1990s. 3.3.2 Financial Management Initiative The Thatcher government’s Financial Management Initiative (FMI) launched in 1982 marked the beginning of a coordinated strategy to improve management in government departments. Based on the financial management information generated by the efficiency scrutinies conducted in the late 1970s, the Initiative sought to devolve responsibility for budgets and financial control to the line departments. Sir Robin Ibbs report, in his Report of 1986 ‘Improving Management in Government, recommended three priorities for reforms: 1.    The work of each department must be organised in a way that focuses on the job to be done. Th e systems and the structures must enhance the effective delivery of policies and services. 2.    The management of each department must ensure that its staff has the relevant experience and skills needed to do the tasks that are essential to effective government. 3.    There must be sustained pressure on and within each department for continuous improvement in the value for money obtained in the delivery of policies and services. Modernising Government Three-year ‘Public Service Agreements’ have been introduced under which departments publicly state the outcomes the citizens can expect from the department’s spending, and disclose explicit productivity and performance targets. Greater ‘joining up’ of the government has been attempted to improve the strategic capability to respond to contingencies at the heart of the government, and the capacity to respond holistically to issues and problems that cannot be tackled satisfactorily by any single department or agency. More specialist skills have been brought into the civil service. The civil service has been opened up to include people from the private sector and civil society, with encouragement to civil servants to have stints in these sectors. Fast tracking for high potential civil servants has been introduced. Civil Service Code Following the recommendations of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life, 1994, the Civil Service Code was drawn up and incorporated into law which came into force on 1st January 1996. It is a clear and concise statement of the responsibilities of civil servants and is part of civil servants’ terms and conditions of employment. In addition to restating the integrity and loyalty required of the civil servants, the Code prohibits, deceiving Parliament, public misuse of official position, and unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. Th e Code provides a right of appeal to the independent Civil Service Commissioners on matters of propriety and conscience, if the problem cannot be resolved within the concerned department. Delegation of Civil Service Management to Departments With effect from 1st April 1996, the heads of departments have been given considerable authority to develop terms and conditions of service of their staff . Th is has allowed them to set conditions of employment to suit their own particular circumstances and thereby achieve better value for money. Senior Civil Service A new Senior Civil Service was created on 1st April 1996. It numbers just under 3,000 members and is a group of senior managers and advisers who, while employed and managed by their own departments, have a broader identity as part of a cohesive group at the top of the Service and are covered by a common framework. Th e framework has a number of important features: •    a central framework of nine overlapping pay grades •    a common job evaluation system •    a personal formal written contract •    a senior common appraisal system. While filling up the vacancies in the Senior Civil Service, wide and open competition is the norm. In recent years, more than 30 per cent of vacancies at the top three levels of the Service have been openly advertised. Th e Centre for Management and Policy Studies has been created for HRD in government. The attempt has been to achieve a shift, through training, from a mindset of an organizationcentred service to a citizen-centred service, from preserving the status quo to change and innovation, from procedural orientation to results orientation, and from monopolistic provision of services to competitive provision of government services. 360-degree appraisals have been introduced for evaluating civil servants in a more objective manner. To protect civil servants from undue pressure from bosses, politicians and businessmen, a reporting and redress system has been set up. The complaint must first be addressed to the departmental head, and if it does not elicit the desired response, the complainant can approach independent Civil Service Commissioners. A Delivery and Reform team with seven sub-teams has been set up under the Cabinet Secretary to drive the agenda forward. Gains of the Reforms A study of effective governance of several countries indicated a substantial improvement in government eff ectiveness.20 One discernible gain of the reforms has been the improvement in the quality of public administration. Another gain is the superior economic performance. UK was considered the sick man of Europe in the 1960s and 1970s. Its annual growth rate was 2.3% versus 4% of its main European rivals, France, Germany and Italy. During the 1980s, UK undertook comprehensive reforms at refurbishing its administration. As a result, UK’s growth rate was 40% higher than of those countries which did not undertake reforms, and the substantial lead has continued. 19.4    France Th e need for civil service reforms began to emerge in the 1970s, when the global economic crisis and the crisis of welfare States affected France. Th e formation of EU also generated additional pressure. Th e French Civil Service was said to have been characterized by overcentralization and high cost to government. Like most civil services in Europe, the French Civil Service is a career based service. As civil servants exercise authority on behalf of the government, their terms and conditions of service are governed by a special legal regime. Like India, the civil service in France is categorized into four categories – Category A, B, C and D. Th e Civil Services in France are further organized into different corps (more than 1500 in numbers). A civil servant is recruited to a corps and remains in it throughout his/her career. Some corps – the Grand Corps – are most prestigious, and civil servants from these corps are posted in important governmental positions. Mobility is an important feature of the higher civil servcies in France. They normally remain within their own corps but they get opportunities to work in the State -owned public enterprises and also in the private sector on secondment basis. Civil Servants in France also have a significant representation in political offices. Th e law permits them to hold political positions while retaining a lien over their original corps. Recruitment to the higher civil services is strictly on merit through competitive examinations. Th e candidates take written examinations on a wide range of subjects. Th e testing procedure lasts for about three months. Th e oral examination is conducted to test both the personality and the motivation of the candidate. Currently, approximately one candidate out of ten is selected. After recruitment, the civil servants undergo training at the Ecole Nationaled’Administration (ENA). Each year a list of posts available at senior administrative levels is made available to the ENA and the trainees are free to choose their posting according to their rank. Th e trainee is under an obligation to serve the Government for a minimum period of ten years. Each year the ENA takes in about hundred to hundred twenty students. Half of these students are recruited directly after at least four years of higher education. The remaining are recruited from the middle echelons of the civil service. A very small portion are also recruited from the private sector. Th e average age of the students thus ranges between mid-twenties to mid-fifties. An important feature of the ENA is that they do not have regular faculty employed at the school and the teachers’ contracts are renewed yearly after an evaluation by the students and the school. Most of the teachers are civil servants. Th e duration of the main training programme is twenty-seven months. In the first year, the student undergoes internship at a French Embassy and in a ‘prefecture’. This is followed by classroom studies at the ENA in the second year. At the end of the course the students are evaluated and given a ranking in the class. Based on the personal preference of the students and their ranks the students join the French Administration: the Conseil d’Etat (State Council), the CourdesComptes (Court of Auditors) and the Inspectorates (General Inspectorates for Finance, for Administration, and for Social Affairs); the prefectoral, diplomatic, and overseas trade promotion services; civil administrators, counsellors in administrative tribunals and regional courts of auditors, and administrators for the City of Paris. 19.5    Japan A process of major administrative reforms was set in motion at the instance of Prime Minister Ikeda in November 1961. He established the Provisional Council on Administrative Reforms (FPARC) with the support of almost all political parties. Th e Council drew up an impressive list of recommendations but only some of them were finally implemented. The Second Provisional Administrative Reforms Commission (SPARC) was set up in March 1981. Acting on the Commission’s recommendation, the government set up a Management and Coordination Agency in 1984. The Agency was given the responsibility to oversee a wide range of administrative and managerial reform. Th e most important contribution of the Commission was in creating a public awareness of the need for a small civil service and periodic reviews of the overall rationale of the civil service by an outside agency. Th e reform proposals of the SPARC were influenced by the idea that the burden borne by the people should be minimized by reducing the size of the government and optimizing the efficiency of administration. Compact Civil Service Japan is one of the few countries that has managed to avoid the natural tendency towards bureaucratic sprawl and has successfully kept the numbers of the civil service within manageable proportions. Japan has enforced manpower ceilings mandated by law and adjusted recruitment to such ceilings. Administrative reforms have also played a crucial role in limiting the size of the civil service. Japan boasts of one of the lowest-cost governments among the industrialized countries, viewed as a percentage of GNP and it has ensured that national resources are not unduly expended on the public sector but are, in fact, available for utilization in the potentially expandable segments of the private sector. Meritocratic Recruitment The Japanese civil service is truly an elite corp that attracts and retains the cream of the Japanese educational system, drawn from the most prestigious universities by a rigorous selection process. The competitive civil service examination is administered each year by the National Personnel Authority to recruit staff for three levels: higher, middle and lower civil services. In the past, almost all the entrants to the top civil service were graduates of the Tokyo university. In recent years, although some have come from a few other universities, the field is still very limited. Career in the Agencies Civil servants are chosen by individual ministries and work only within the agency to which they are recruited. In this respect. the Japanese civil servants are specialists in only one area of the government. Th ere is virtually no movement from one agency to another. A Japanese civil servant enters an agency in his/her early twenties and once in that agency, his/her entire governmental career is spent there. Th e civil servant is given a variety of positions throughout the agency to which he/she is recruited. Transfers are effected once in two years. Th e system of transfer is so designed as to ensure that a civil servant acquires a broad familiarity with the agency’s overall functions by the time he/she ascends to its top echelons. Throughout the entire career of the civil servant, loyalty to the agency is inculcated. A Clear Path to the Top Promotion within the civil service takes place on the basis of a combination of seniority and a number of performance indicators that diff er across agencies. Since the number of promotional vacancies in Japan is limited by law, competition for promotion tends to be intense. As Chalmers Johnson found, ‘Who becomes a bureau chief, a director general or ultimately the administrative vice-minister is a source of intense competition among the classes in a ministry.’23 Successful civil servants can expect to achieve the position of a Section Chief after approximately 15 years of service, Assistant Bureau Chief after 22-25 years, and Bureau Chief after 25-28 years. The position of Administrative Vice-Minister is achieved after 28-30 years. Th e system of promotion for civil servants is designed to enhance and reward individual eff orts congruent with agency or national goals. Promotions are regular, but the internal merit system ensures that the best jobs go to those who have proved themselves. Th e career path is well-defi ned and competitive and those who fi nally make it to the top, are amply rewarded. Incentive-based Compensation Civil servants in Japan are paid salaries that are slightly below those in the private sector. Th e National Personnel Authority annually surveys thousands of companies to ascertain the salary levels in the private sector. In 1990, a new entrant to the civil service received 168,000 yens per month while the private sector equivalent was only 10 per cent higher. Th e salaries paid to the civil servants are however not considered commensurate with their worth. Japanese civil servants have to wait for deferred gratification till their retirement. Civil servants retire in their early to mid-fifties. On retirement, reward for a successful civil servant is substantial post-retirement placement with handsome remuneration and perks. Th e system is called amakudari which literally means ‘descent from Heaven’ and involves a lucrative post-retirement job in a private corporation. This is the deferred gratification for a civil servant for his/her years of faithful and useful service in the government. Deliberation Councils The Deliberation Councils in Japan, established by government, provide the fora where civil servants and representatives of the private sector - business, labour, consumers, academia and the press - meet to discuss policy, analyze market trends and exchange views and information. Th e Councils adopt a consensual mode of discussion. When the Council agrees on a proposal, the Diet approves the proposal almost automatically. The Deliberation Councils in Japan have played a very useful role. Th ey have helped civil servants to gather information about the world markets, technology trends, and the impact of regulations domestically and abroad, to synthesize the information into an action plan, and to communicate the plan back to the private sector. Policy Evaluation System A recent major initiative has been the introduction of a policy evaluation system. Each ministry conducts an evaluation of policies that are newly implemented as well as of those policies and systems that have already been set up. Policy evaluation criteria are necessity, efficiency, effectiveness, equity, and priority, and the use of these criteria is expected to throw up alternatives to existing policies and practices. Some critical questions are asked. Is the policy results-effectiveIs there an alternative, better policy? Project evaluation, performance management and programme evaluation techniques are used for the purpose. Agencification Another recent adaptation has been the semi-autonomous executive agency idea. The provocation was the finding of a survey that less than 20% of the population rated the government as fair and reflecting the wishes of the people. Th ere was also a massive budgetary deficit with the public debt at 45% of GDP. Th e government was keen to separate policymaking from implementation, and so, the LDP made ‘agencification’ an election issue in 1996 to cut costs and make the process of governance more responsive and accountable to the people. Agencification started in 2001. Th e Japanese agencies are called Independent Administration Institutions (IAIs) and are constituted under an empowering law. The formation of agencies is subject to the following criteria •    An agency can be formed if the central government did not have to perform the activity •    If privatized, the private sector was not in a position to ensure that public goals would be achieved •    The national economy depended on the implementation of the activity. Agencies formed were involved in R&D, culture and training, financing, operations, construction and management of assets. By 2004, a large number of agencies had been set up, with 40% of the civil servants working in these agencies. For each agency, the minister concerned sets a 3-5 year goal. Th e plan consists of the budget and the targeted improvements in efficiency and quality of services provided. Th e agency submits the plan for approval within the ambit of the ministerial directive. Within the terms of the plan, IAIs have full discretion to manage resources. In exchange for discretion in operations, they are accountable for results. An evaluation committee in each parent ministry monitors performance every year. The Commission on Evaluation of Policies and Evaluation of IAIs in the Ministry of Public Management examines the evaluation results by the evaluation committees. Each agency gets an operating grant to pay for any expected deficit, and a subsidy for its capital expenditure. Th ere are no restrictions on how to spend the operating grant so long as the expenditure is for meeting objectives. Unspent balances can be carried forward, and operating surpluses can be retained. The CEO is appointed by the concerned minister and is directly accountable to the minister. The agencies have no governance boards. The CEO appoints senior executives on contract with performance-linked pay. While the civil servant employees of the agencies have life-time employment, the other employees are dealt with as in the private sector. Research on 57 agencies in 2003 revealed that operating autonomy of these bodies had increased, the employees had become more quality conscious, costreduction and customer-oriented, and effectiveness had improved. Gains of the Reforms On the whole, Japan has followed an interesting strategy for enhancing governance capacity. It has sought to function as Japan Inc., with contributions to governance through its deliberation councils and extensive dialogue on policy issues with stakeholders such as industry, labour, consumers, academia and representatives of the civil society. It has kept at bay political and bureaucratic interference by getting a virtually autonomous agency to make all the recruitment and promotion decisions in the civil service. It has resorted extensively to the executive agency concept to de-link policy formulation from implementation by professional managers. It has kept reasonable parity between government and private sector remuneration so as to continue to attract and retain talent in the civil service. 19.6 Lessons Learnt from International Experience Experience civil service reforms in these countries has varied considerably, but several key aspects emerge: Clarity of Purpose and Task A key structural reform in these countries has been the separation of policy and operational responsibilities. Th e logic for such separation has been two-fold: (a)    the separation of policy advice from operational functions would allow those responsible for operational activities to focus on their prime objective i.e. running their operations as efficiently as possible given the policy parameters established by the government, and (b)    separation of policy-making from implementation as a mechanism would ensure that contestable policy options are generated and government does not get captured by provider interests which influence its policy proposals. Across the full spectrum of governments that the Commission studied, ministerial departments responsible for policy advice, including the monitoring and evaluation of policy implementation, have been separated from departments, agencies and other entities responsible for delivery of public services, enforcement of regulations and so on. However, in the process of such separation, the basic principles of ministerial responsibility have not been compromised. Ministers in these countries continue to be responsible for the policies they adopt and their implementation. Nonetheless, the responsibilities of the heads of both types of departments, policy and operational, have been clarified in respect of their obligations to the ministers. Th e experience of these countries demonstrates that it is possible, and also beneficial, to effect the broadest possible though not complete separation of policy and operational responsibilities. There have been variations across different policy sectors in the extent to which the separation can be effected, but it is clear that such a separation has enhanced the quality of policy advice and contributed to greater productivity in operational activities. Agencification A key step that these countries have taken in revamping their public administration is setting up of agencies. Agencies have been established to carry out the operational responsibilities of the government within a policy and resources framework set by the government. Total management and financial responsibility has been delegated to the heads of these agencies so that they are able to design structures and processes that match the needs of their organizations and deliver results as agreed upon. Th e agency model has led to clarity and focus on specified tasks, a culture of service delivery, greater accountability and openness, contextually appropriate structures and systems compared to the earlier standardized, monolithic systems, innovative thinking and action, development of a brand for the services offered, better risk management and greater tendency to expose problems rather than keeping them hidden. Delegation and Devolution of Authority Reforms have brought about a significant reduction in central control and delegation of authority, and in the process, a commendable measure of devolution in the management of government operations, including the management of human resources. Given the restructuring to effect a separation of policy and implementation, the central ministries have divested themselves of most of the control functions they exercised prior to the reforms. Within a framework of legislated requirements and broad policies, the heads of the agencies are now fully responsible for the agency’s financial management and performance as well as for the management, information and accounting systems required to achieve the best possible results. With powers directly assigned to the agency heads by legislation, they enjoy total autonomy in recruiting staff and designing personnel systems that suit the particular needs and circumstances of their agencies. Common services are no longer under the control of central ministries, and the departments and agencies are free to obtain services from whatever sources they deem most appropriate and cost-effective. The fact to be noted, however, is that the significant devolution of authority has been effected within a framework that involves clear specification of desired results and effective monitoring of performance. Accountability Reforms have enhanced accountability by linking (a)    the outputs/outcomes framework (b)    the separation of policy and operational responsibilities and (c)    the delegation and devolution of authority, to mechanisms for securing accountability. The outputs/ outcomes framework focuses on the outputs the agencies produce and their contribution to the outcomes set by the government. It tracks results and progress towards targets. The output component of the framework also facilitates tracking and benchmarking of process and hence, is an important input to improved accountability. In most of these countries whose experience the Commission studied, the parliamentary appropriation process provides detailed public information on the outcomes sought by the ministers and the outputs they seek to finance in pursuit of these outcomes. Ministerial accountability is strengthened by the extent to which the legislatures and the members of the public are better informed in this regard. Within the government, the accountability of the civil servants has been strengthened by resorting to explicit contracts governing the relationship between ministers and the departmental heads. The contracts cover both the performance expected of the departmental heads and the policy and/or operational outputs. Greater clarity in responsibilities, and thus accountabilities, has been the result. The heads of the agencies have been given the authority necessary to deliver the results expected of them because these results are clearly specified in advance. Such an accountability regime has given the agency heads sufficient incentive to develop well-functioning organizations, precisely because the performance of the head of the agency is ultimately tied to the performance of his/her subordinates and the efectiveness of departmental management systems and operational procedures. The Civil Service: Continuity and Change Changes in Personnel Management Systems As a result of the reforms, the civil services in these countries, while continuing to have many of the distinguishing features of a conventional civil service, are discernibly different from the civil services of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. These former features include the meritocratic nature of the civil service as well as its apolitical character within a structure of responsible government and ministerial control of administration. These continuities with the past, however, may be contrasted with the differences. Conventional civil services whose practices derived from Whitehall in the mid-nineteenth century developed on the basis of a career civil service with life-time employment till retirement age subject to satisfactory conduct. Th e framework of a career service essentially remains in spite of the reforms, but life-time employment has been replaced by contracts and exit, based on non-performance. With the introduction of an agency-based management structure, there is the emergence of a new civil service whose unity is expressed in terms of statutorily prescribed ‘values’ and ‘codes of conduct’ and where uniformity of employment, pay and conditions of service has been dispensed with. Management powers are now vested in the department or agency, and not in an overarching central administrative authority such as the Personnel Ministry with comprehensive powers over recruitment, establishments, pay and conditions of employment, or discipline including dismissal. Public service commissioners, where they have been continued after the reforms, have largely professional rather than employment or management roles, and are active in training and staff development activities, and articulation and promotion of ethical standards. Senior Civil Service Clearly defined senior executive cadres are a visible component of the reforms in most of these countries. Historically, the conventional civil services had common personnel structure from initial recruitment to the top levels. Even at the highest levels of the civil service, the distinctions were limited to methods of appointment (generally by the government) and certain entitlements (for example, class of travel). Th e conventional civil service system has given way, to the creation of a separately defined senior executive cadre, still mainly drawn from the ranks of the government but with individually negotiated terms of employment. Recruitment and Career Progression One of the core principles of the reforms in these countries is that recruitment to the civil service and career advancement should be on the basis of merit. Merit in the framework of reforms has meant: •    Open advertisement for all positions to ensure that all eligible applicants in society apply for the position •    The selection process at each stage is fair, objective and transparent and is seen to be applied fairly to all the applicants •    There is no patronage or favouritism or ministerial involvement in the selection process and in individual staffing decisions •    Ensuring that those appointed have the necessary skills and competencies for the position. It is important to note that merit is the guiding consideration not merely at the initial recruitment stage but also at other stages of career progression. A number of candidates from the open market have been inducted to civil service positions in these countries. Domain Knowledge, Skills and Competency Reforms in these countries have recognised that in order to sustain high levels of productivity and to be compatible with the changing structure of government and the changing policy environment, the civil service will increasingly require skilled recruits and structured learning and development strategies for all employees. It is also recognised that the skills needed for coordinated policy work and flexible policy implementation are different from those required of civil servants when they were the sole suppliers of advice to governments and administered service monopolies. In the changed circumstances the civil service requires strong technical skills, especially in contract management, financial and risk management, information technology and communications in view of the community demands and expectations of improved access to governmental services through user-friendly egovernment and e-business. Results-Oriented Civil Service Th e implementation of reforms in these countries has seen the emergence of a civil service which is results-oriented. Th e movement to an output/outcome framework with the new department/agency-based management structure has led to key priorities being identified and forming a part of the performance agreements of the agency heads. Th ese priorities which are output-based, are supposed to be SMART - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Results Focused and Time-bound. This is a variant of the traditional objective setting in that the terms Relevant or Realistic have been replaced by Results-Focused. As a commentator puts it, “The framework has helped departments understand that, just as in the private sector, survival is dependent upon meeting the needs of the customer. Because their customer is interested in outcomes, the departments, given sufficient competitive pressure, will strive to design and provide better public services to achieve those outcomes.” In addition, the legislated values for the civil service require that the focus is on achieving results and managing performance so that capability and effective performance is mainstreamed in civil service management. Performance Management The reform agenda in these countries – focusing as they did on managing for results and devolution - has led to better performance management. As a result, performance management systems have been put in place, strengthening accountability for inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes.30 Performance management systems have been designed for each decision-maker, section, agency, department, ministry and indeed, the whole government. For each public service, the major components of performance management systems have been the service’s aims and mission, strategic objectives, breaking down of the objectives for the components of the organization, the agreed upon targets of individual managers and key result areas, periodic reporting of performance against targets and standards and remedial action. At every level, the specific needs of the customers of the service as well as critical success factors and closing of any capability or other gaps have been kept in mind. In the scheme of reforms, the performance management systems in government are aimed at creating a performance culture, increasing accountability of staff and organizations for using resources efficiently and meeting objectives, empowering citizens to generate pressure for change and transformation through the publication of the performance review results, providing guidance for capacity building and contributing to the overall developmental agenda. Civil Service Values The reforms have established a set of principles to guide civil service behaviour in the form of values and a legally enforceable code of conduct. Civil servants are required to behave at all times in a way that upholds the legislated values. Th e heads of the departments and agencies are required not only to uphold the values themselves but also to promote the values in their organizations to all their employees. They are also required to apply relevant values to outsourced service providers and partners, particularly those providing services to the public. Th e values are not just inspirational statements, but have been embedded into the systems and procedures of the departments and agencies through fraud control and risk management procedures, appropriate governance systems, performance management and training. As a result of the reforms, the conventional civil services driven by hierarchical command and control have been transformed into unified civil services defined by values. Flatter Structures The organisation of government in the past has been characterised by hierarchical and pyramidical structures with a large number of levels - these in fact were the salient features of the Weberian bureaucracy. Such structures generally go with rule bound procedures and red tapism. With increasing complexities of governance and rising aspirations of people such structures have been found to be too rigid to respond quickly. Therefore one of the major elements of reforms in several countries has been the reorganisation of government into ‘flatter structures’ which have fewer number of levels and in which people work in teams rather than in rigid hierarchies and the emphasis is on decentralisation, empowerment and accountability of cutting edge functionaries. Involving Citizens An explicit agenda of the reforms in most of these countries has been to systematically involve the citizens and stakeholders in the planning processes of policy development and policy implementation. This is in recognition of the differing values and perspectives of the members of the community and the increasing expectations of the members of the public and stakeholders to influence the services they receive and the policies that affect them. Th e reforms have made it possible for the civil servants to use a range of techniques including deliberation councils, focus groups, consultative committees, client surveys and standardscum-citizen charters to involve citizens and stakeholders. Such involvement has resulted in better policy and service delivery and better information about community perspectives. Good policy-making is now seen as listening to community views, understanding the fears and sensitivities of those affected, providing feedback and explaining government policy. The reforms have demonstrated that the effectiveness of a programme or policy initiative is greatly influenced by the quality of the communication strategy. 19.7    Summary Several fundamental changes have occurred since the mid-1970s in the civil services of most countries across the globe. Governments have sought to reshape rigid, hierarchical nineteenth-century bureaucracies into more flexible, decentralised, citizen-responsive civil services, compatible with late twentieth century technological and economic requirements. In some of these countries, reforms have been sweeping, representing programmes of radical, systemic transformation. Some other countries have pursued strategies of incremental improvements in specific aspects of the functioning of the civil service while conserving the basic core of their administrative structure. The experience of the countries that is discussed in this Unit forms a continuum of change in this spectrum, with New Zealand, Australia and the UK, at the systemic, reformist end while the Asian cases, Japan and have taken more incrementalist approaches. This Unit tries to analyse these approaches and extrapolate lessons that may be learnt and adopted as appropriate in the Indian context. 19.8    Glossary Performance management appraisal is a systematic and periodic process of measuring an individual’s work performance against the established requirement of the job. 19.9 Answer to self-check exercisesTo see extenta)    19.1,19.4 b)    19.5,19.619.10    Suggested reading 1.    Maheshwari S.R. "Civil Service in Great Britain", Concept Publishing Company, 1976. 2.    Goel S.L. "Personnel Administration and Management", Deep and Deep publication, New Delhi, 2002. 3.    Palekar S.A. “Public Personnel administration”, ABD Publisher, New Delhi 2020. 4.    Kumar kar Sushant” public personnel Administration”, Kunal Books Publisher, 2018. 5.    Procter W. Arthur ”Principles of Public Personnel Administration” Forgotten Books Publication, 2022. *************************************************************************** Unit -20 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 20.0. Learning Objectives 20.1 . Introduction 20.2    Prevailing Performance Appraisal Systems for Civil Servants 20.3    System in India 20.4    Analysis of the Present Performance Appraisal System for Civil Servants 20.5    Making the Existing Personnel Performance Appraisal System Effective 20.6    Objectives and Aspects of PMS 20.7    Introducing a Performance Management System 20.8 The Process of Implementation 20.9    Performance Agreements 20.10    Performance Agreements 20.11    Summary 20.12    Glossary 20.13    Answer to self-check exercises 20.14    Suggested reading 20.0.    Learning Objectives After going through this lesson, the student will be able to understand 20.1    IntroductionPresent System of Performance Management in Government Traditionally governance structures in India are characterized by rule-based approaches. Th e focus of the civil services in India is on process-regulation: compliance with centrally prescribed standards and rules; in other words, how things should be done and how inputs should be aligned. With such focus on processes, systems in government are oriented towards input usage- how much resources, staff and facilities are deployed in a scheme, programme or project and whether such deployment is in accordance with rules and regulations. Th e main performance measure thus is the amount of money spent and the success of the schemes, programmes and projects is generally evaluated in terms of the inputs consumed. While such an approach satisfies the considerations of economy of inputs and compliance with process regulation, it fails to indicate what are the results achieved by the activities of government in general and deployment of public funds in particular. In fact, the focus on input for accountability and control has led to a situation in which civil servants are rarely held accountable for the outcomes. Compliance with rules is not sufficient for achieving outcomes. Obviously, the objective must be to shift the focus away from traditional concerns such as expenditure and activity levels towards a framework that would manage for results by developing robust indicators to assess performance in terms of results. Performance management as it exists in government includes conventional tools like the budgetary exercise, annual reports published by the Ministries/Departments, performance budgets and the recently introduced outcome budget. Ministries and departments of government have varying practices of periodically reviewing their organizational performance. In addition, special studies are also commissioned from time to time. Th ese are the basic requirements of a performance management system and much more is required to be done. Some earlier initiatives are described in the following paragraphs performance Budgeting To achieve results, Government of India introduced a scheme of performance budgeting from the financial year 1975-76. Under this scheme, along with the detailed demand for grants, a performance budget document is presented to the Parliament. Th e performance budget is intended to present a meaningful relationship between inputs and outputs, and indicate the correlation between planned programmes and their performance in financial and physical terms. Broadly, the performance budget has four parts, indicating: •    Broad objectives, programmes and projects, the organizations and agencies with the responsibility to implement them, the highlights of performance during the previous financial year, progress during the current year, and the programme for the next year. •    Linkages between the Five Year plans, the achievements to date, and the tasks ahead. •    Financial statements showing the outlays required for the programmes, projects or activities and the provisions in the current and next financial year. •    Details of the scope, plan of action, achievements, programmes, and performance during the current year and future programmes, along with outlays in respect of each activity in the various broad programmes of the department. Although the scheme of performance budgeting was introduced several years ago yet it has not achieved its objective. While looking at the functioning of performance budgeting in the departments, Thimmaiah found that factors such as bureaucratic resistance, corruption among civil servants and legislative indifference contributed to the failure of the scheme. Thimmaiah also found that performance budgets were prepared in the spirit of routine documentation. It has been observed that the performance budget documents are descriptive and often lack a thorough analysis of the performance of the department concerned. Zero-based Budgeting In the mid-1980s, the scheme of zero-based budgeting was introduced in government departments. Th e objective of the scheme was to: •    involve civil servants at all levels in the budgetary process •    justify the resource requirements for existing activities as well as new activities •    focus justification on the evaluation of discrete programmes or activities of each unit of administration •    establish objectives against which accomplishments could be identified and measured, and assess alternative methods of accomplishing objectives •    analyze the probable effects of different budgetary provisions or performance levels on the achievement of objectives •    provide a credible rationale for reallocating resources, especially from old activities to new activities Th e scheme has not yielded the desired results. It has now been, more or less, abandoned in spite of occasional eff orts by the Ministry of Finance and the Planning Commission to revive it. Outcome Budgeting More recently, Government has introduced the system of outcome budgeting. This is a positive step in incorporating a sense of results-orientation in governance structures by moving from outlays to outputs and outcomes. Th ese are early stages of implementation and only after sufficient experience has been gained, can the success of this initiative be gauged. 20.2    Prevailing Performance Appraisal Systems for Civil Servants As performance of an organization/agency is dependent on the performance of individual civil servants, over a period, an elaborate mechanism to evaluate the performance of individual government servants has evolved. Th ese individual performance appraisal systems can be categorized as follows: a.    Conventional closed system of ACR (Annual Confidential Report) This is the traditional system, where at the end of a pre-set period (usually a calendar year), achievements of the officer are recorded and graded, absolutely or relatively. The significant feature of this method is the complete secrecy of the exercise, both in process and results, unless the rules specifically mention otherwise. Adverse remarks are communicated to the officer reported upon. b.    Performance Appraisal with openness This system is an improvement of the above, with the added feature of transparency and involvement of the officer at different levels. It involves setting goals at the start of the assessment period, reviews during the period and final assessment against achievement of goals. Finally, performance excellence is decided by a number (grades of 1-10) to be assigned by the reporting officer. 20.3    System in India The performance of every Government servant is assessed annually through his/ her Confidential Report, which is an important document providing the basic and vital inputs for assessing the performance of the Government servant and his/her suitability for his/her further advancement in his/her career on occasions like confirmation, promotion, crossing of EB, selection for deputation, selection for foreign assignment etc. Performance appraisal through confidential reports is a tool for human resource development in order to enable a Government servant to realize his/her true potential. It is not a fault finding process, but a development one. The Reporting Officer, at the beginning of the year, has to set quantitative/ physical targets in consultation with each of the Government servants, whose reports he/ she is required to write. Performance appraisal is meant to be a joint exercise between the Government servant reported upon and the Reporting Officer. While fixing the targets, priority should be assigned item-wise, taking into consideration the nature and the area of work. Th e Confidential Report is initiated by the Government servant to be reported upon, who gives a brief description of his/her duties, specifies the targets set for him wherever applicable, achievements against each target, shortfalls, if any, constraints encountered and areas where the achievements have been greater. In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Lt Gen. (Retd.) Surinder Nath in 2002, the Performance Appraisal System for All India Service Officers has been modified and the salient features include setting of goals in consultation with the appraised officer, a numerical grading system (scale of 1 to 10), introduction of a pen picture of the appraisee, sharing the entire PAR with the appraisee officer, etc. Performance Appraisal System in the Armed Forces Performance appraisal systems in the Armed Forces are more elaborate and rigorous because they are the main criteria for the very limited promotions that are made to higher positions in these Services. For example, in the Army, only 3% of officers make it to the grade of Brigadier and above. Th e highlights of their system are as follows:- a.    Officers are evaluated on a scale of 1:10 on different attributes. Th is evaluation is done separately by the reporting officer and the next two higher levels. b.    For the purpose of promotions, the Army generally follows two types of systems – the ‘closed’ system and the ‘open’ system. In the ‘closed’ system, the Promotion Board is not privy to the names of the officers concerned for promotion. Also, officers of the same rank are permitted to attend the deliberations of the promotion board as “observers” though they cannot participate in it. In the ‘open’ system (for ranks of Major General and above); the identity of the officers being considered is also known to the Promotion Board. c.    There is a system of rating the reporting officers wherein the reporting officers are classified as ‘liberal’, ‘strict’ and ‘rating tendency not known’. d.    The prescribed trainings and examinations have to be cleared by the officers before they are considered fi t for promotion. e.    The entire performance appraisal record of the officer is compiled in the form of a matrix with the numerical points assigned to each attribute and other details of appointment and achievements, the type of rating given, details of reporting officers battle honors etc. f.    Promotions in the Army are limited to the number of vacancies available making use of the three-year moving average of vacancies likely to be available. g.    In case an officer is not promoted for the first time, his case is reviewed two more times and thereafter, if he is still not considered fi t for promotion and ultimately after obtaining the benefit of time scale, he retires at the relevant prescribed age - 52 years in the case of a Colonel, 54 years for a Brigadier etc. 20.4    Analysis of the Present Performance Appraisal System for Civil Servants The prevalent closed system for appraisal of civil servants in India (other than the All India Services) has major limitations. These include: a.    It lacks in quantification of targets and evaluation against achievement of targets. b.    Confusion still prevails among civil servants regarding what is good performance and the level of performance expected from them, by their department, superiors, and the public. The system is affected by unclear performance standards, possible bias on the part of superiors, political influence, etc. c.    The existing performance appraisal does not solve the problem of poor performance. d.    Performance appraisal becomes meaningless in certain cases where the job fit is ignored while posting an officer, and where there are frequent transfers. At the same time, perceived clash between an individual’s career goals and organizational goals further compounds the situation. e.    The format may be good but sometimes the way it is filled up shows lack of due care and seriousness. Th is could also be because of the large span of supervision of most Government officers, which mandates them to write the ACRs of so many officers, some of whom they may not even personally recognise. f.    Since the present system shares only an adverse grading, a civil servant remains unaware about how he/she is rated in his/her work. g.    Many reporting officers pay little attention to distinguish good and average workers while grading them. Consequently, most Government officials end up getting very good/outstanding grading which is considered “good for promotion” and hence there is no motivation for real performers. h.    The system of deciding on representations against an adverse entry sometimes take so long that reporting officers avoid giving an adverse entry. Many a time, for want of evidence against the reported civil servant, the reporting officer is in a defensive position and thus unable to justify his/her adverse remarks The new Performance Appraisal System for the All India Services has tried to overcome some of these shortcomings by including a “participative workplan through a consultative and transparent process. However, the new system also has certain limitations: a.    Th e new format does not recognize the difference in performance parameters applicable for civil servants working in completely different departments/ agencies. b.    Th e new format also does not do away with the element of subjectivity when it comes to assigning numerical ratings/grades to different attributes of the Government servants. c.    It still emphasizes the performance appraisal report as the key element. The term Report is an improvement over Ratings, but does not recognize adequately the development and improvement dimensions, though the objective is closer now. d.    It does not adequately assess the potential of an officer to hold higher responsibilities. e.    It emphasizes career development, but does not link it sufficiently with performance improvements. It underplays the need for performance improvements as a career growth intervention. f.    There are too many levels for ratings and the accepting authority is often far removed from the officer reported upon. g.    There is presently no training for orienting the users in the system of the new format. As a result, it could become a routine form filling exercise rather than a performance appraisal one. 20.5 Making the Existing Personnel Performance Appraisal System Effective Making Appraisal More Consultative and Transparent In the present format for performance appraisal of civil servants (other than for the All India Services), it has been stipulated that the reporting officer, at the beginning of the year, has to set quantitative/physical targets in consultation with each of the Government servants whose report he/she is required to write. In spite of this, it has been observed that in practice no such effective consultation takes place at the beginning of the year for fixing the targets. Th e recently amended AIS Performance Appraisal Rules provide for a more structured consultation process. The Commission is of the view that such a two-way consultative process leads to the fixing of more realistic targets which would have greater acceptability. This would also help in improving the performance of the officers and equally of the organization in which they work. The Commission is therefore of the view that the new PAR format prescribed for the All India Services should also be introduced for other Central Services/organizations. As the term Annual Confidential Report indicates, the appraisal reports for civil servants (other than the AIS) are not disclosed to the officer reported upon – except for adverse remarks. This reduces its effectiveness as a tool for performance management. The newly introduced AIS Performance Appraisal Rules have provided for a transparent approach regarding the annual performance appraisal reports and it has been stipulated that the full annual performance appraisal report, including the overall grade and assessment of integrity, shall be disclosed to the officer reported upon. The Commission is of the view that similar provisions for promoting transparency also need to be introduced in respect of all Services/organizations. Performance Appraisal Formats to be Job Specific Based on the guidelines/instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training different Services/organizations have evolved formats for performance appraisal of their officers/officials. The same formats are used in respect of members of different Services irrespective of whether these officials are working in their parent departments or on deputation to outside departments/agencies. As a result, members of different Services working in the same Ministry may be appraised using different formats which is quite irrational. Th e Commission is of the view that the appraisal formats of civil servants need to be more specifically linked to the tasks assigned to them and to the goals of the Department/ Organization in which the officer is working. To meet this objective, the Commission feels that the appraisal format prescribed for civil servants should have three sections i.e. (i)    a generic section that meets the requirements of a particular Service to which the officer belongs. (ii)    another section based on the goals and requirements of the department in which he is working, and (iii)    a final section which captures the specific requirements and targets relating to the post that the officer is holding. Performance Appraisal to be Year Round At present, the annual performance exercise is performed in a routine manner after the end of the financial year. As already mentioned, no effective consultations regarding setting targets for the civil servant concerned takes place under the present system even though guidelines call for such consultations. No detailed work plans or mid-year review of the performance of the civil servants being appraised have been prescribed. Th e revised All India Services (PAR) Rules rectify this situation by providing for an agreed work plan for the year to be decided in consultation between the officer and his/her reporting officer which has to be reviewed again in September/October and revised if required by 31st October. By incorporating provisions for a detailed work plan and a mid-year review, the new rules have helped to ensure effective and continuing consultations for target setting. The Commission is of the view that similar provisions should also be introduced for other Services. Formulating Guidelines for Assigning Numerical Rating. The conventional system prescribed in the annual confidential reports for civil servants followed a grading system that placed or rated officers in categories ranging from ‘average’, ‘good’ and ‘very good’ to ‘outstanding’. The new PAR format for All India Service Officers replaces this with an improved rating system wherein officers are assigned a numerical grade from 0 to 10 for different parameters. While this is an improvement on the old system, the numerical gradings secured by the officers still depend on the subjective evaluation made by the reporting and reviewing officers. It is quite possible that officers of similar competence and performance may be assigned different numerical grades depending on the disposition – liberal or otherwise – of the reporting/reviewing officer. Th e Commission is of the view that the Department of Personnel and Training should formulate detailed guidelines to guide the reporting and reviewing officer for assigning numerical ratings for their subordinates. It would also be necessary to incorporate training modules on this aspect in the training programmes for civil servants. This should be supplemented by preparing a computerized data base wherein the details of the officers reported upon as well as the reporting and reviewing officers are captured for further analysis. Th is would enable the department to take a view subsequently on how numerical ratings can be moderated taking into account individual disposition. Degree Evaluation During the past few decades, the 360 degree feedback, also known as “multi-source feedback” has gained momentum in performance management literature. Its application today transcends national boundaries. 360 degree feedback augments the traditional practice of selfsupervising performance appraisal by getting feedbacks from multipurpose sources which include: - •    Self •    Superiors •    Peers •    Subordinates •    Internal Customers •    External Customers •    Others Many countries are using or contemplating to use the 360 degree feedback in the civil services. Some of these countries are the UK, EU and Australia. Th e key driver to introduce this performance feedback process into the UK Civil Service was Sir Richard Wilson’s Report on Civil Service Reforms which specifically suggested the introduction of a 360 degree feedback for senior civil servants by the end of 2001. Th e underpinning assumption for good leadership is self-awareness and that “if done well, it is a very powerful tool of management and a very good way of helping people improve their own performance” (Wilson, cited in Moore, 2000p.15). In the context of India where strong hierarchal structures exist and for historical and social reasons it may not be possible to introduce this system unless concerns of integrity and transparency are addressed. However, it is suggested that Government may consider sensitizing officers at all levels about the importance of this feedback mechanism and its possible use in understanding their behaviour and their ability to relate to others. Performance Management The evolution of the concept of performance management as a new Human Resource Management model reflects a change of emphasis in organizations away from commandand-control towards a facilitation model of leadership. Th is change has been accompanied by recognition of the importance to the employee and the institution of relating work performance to the strategic or long-term and overarching mission of the organization as a whole. Employees’ goals and objectives are derived from their departments, which in turn support the mission and goals of the organization. Th is search for results-orientation in several governments across the globe started with the approach to entrepreneurial government taken by Osborne and Gaebler in their influential book Reinventing Government. Later, Osborne and Plastrik set out their principles of entrepreneurial Government in their book Banishing Bureaucracy. One of these principles is Results Oriented Government: Funding Outcomes, Not Inputs. Performance Management is the essence of managing, and the primary “vehicle” for getting the desired results through employees at all levels in the organization. Th e performance management process provides an opportunity for the employee and performance manager to discuss development goals and jointly create a plan for achieving those goals. Development plans should contribute to organizational goals and the professional growth of the employee. In the absence of such a system, staff members are unclear as to the employer’s expectations regarding performance objectives and standards/targets, leading to low productivity, costly mistakes, stress, de-motivation, and conflict. Sound Performance Management Systems subscribe to the crucial Principle: “What gets measured gets done”. The days of having a “one-set-of-measures-fits-all” Performance Management System are inherently flawed and long gone. Performance objectives and measures need to be specific to job categories and individual roles. Performance management is the systematic process by which the organization involves its employees, as individuals and members of a group, in improving organizational effectiveness in the accomplishment of organizational mission and goals. Performance management is a holistic process bringing together many activities which collectively contribute to the effective management of individuals and teams in order to achieve high levels of organizational performance. Performance management is strategic in that it is about broader issues and long term goals and integrated as it links various aspects of the business, people management, individuals and teams. To strengthen both, individual effectiveness and organizational effectiveness, it is essential that individuals are suitably empowered, however authority and accountability should be commensurate with each other. Such checks and balances would improve the effectiveness of the performance management system. Performance Appraisal vs. Performance Management Often the distinction between performance management and performance appraisal is not clearly understood. Performance appraisal is one component of the Performance management cycle and is the process of assessing an employee’s performance in the current position. Thus ‘Appraisal’ is an annual affair while performance ‘management’ is a year round activity. Appraisal focuses on ratings while ‘management’ focuses on the work, the stakeholders, service levels, productivity, motivation eff ort and all such performance related variables. 20.6 Objectives and Aspects of PMS The main objective of performance management is continuous improvements in performance with a view to attaining organizational goals. Th e performance improvements need to be seen in terms of achievement of the objectives and goals of the organization. Th e PMS process has two clear objectives: a.    The Evaluation Objective •    Evaluating & assessing the readiness of an individual to accept higher responsibilities •    To apprise the individuals of their current competency level and need to improve by giving them feedback •    To link it with compensation, rewards and career development. b.    The Development Objective •    Counselling & coaching of the subordinates to improve their performance & upgrade their competencies •    To motivate subordinates through recognition and support •    To build rapport between superior and subordinate •    To diagnose individual & organizational competencies, so that actions can be taken on problem areas •    To define the training requirements based on individual competencies. Organizational Benefits of PMS The PMS process helps organizations to: •    serve as the primary vehicle for implementing organisational goals and strategies (cascaded from top to bottom throughout the organisation). •    Align and integrate the objectives and Key Performance Indicaters (KPI’s) of the organization vertically and horizontally through all job categories and levels, including management. In this way the entire system works together in pointing towards the critical bottom line MEASURES, with bottom line RESULTS following as a matter of course (“What gets measured gets done”). •    facilitate continuous performance improvement, organisation development and culture change. •    achieve quality, efficiency and effectiveness, i.e. to meet the citizens’ needs as precisely, quickly and economically as possible. •    ensure clarity regarding work expectations and performance standards, reducing job holder anxiety/stress, resource wastage and conflict. •    continually enhance employee competence through identification of output-related training and development needs and strategies. •    reduce Line Manager reluctance and fear to do Performance Appraisals with their staff . •    facilitate performance-based remuneration and rewards, so that employees can see and experience a clear link between their performance and the rewards they receive. Pre-requisites for Implementing an Effective Performance Management System a.    Strong commitment from top management. b.    High level of participation of all concerned. c.    Clear definitions of what constitutes performance in a given role. This emanates from the objectives of the department and the organization. This should also reflect the linkages of role with others. d.    Identification of performance parameters and definition of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). What comprises the performance has to be communicated to the individual, so that he/she has an idea about what the superior’s expectations are. e.    Consistency of application. f.    Adequate organizational training to be provided to the individual to achieve superior performance. g.    Strong commitment to regular recognition of good performance. h.    Rewards and recognition should be built into the system and need not be linked with appraisals alone. Processes of PMS Performance management is a cyclical process which includes the following elements: •    Planning work & setting expectations •    Monitoring performance •    Developing the capacity to perform •    Rating performance •    Rewarding good performance Planning Work & Setting Expectations Effective organizations are proactive. Planning means setting performance expectations and goals for groups and individuals, to channel their eff orts towards achieving organizational objectives. Involvement of the employees in the planning process will help them understand the goals of the organization, what needs to be done, why it needs to be done, and how well it should be done. Above all, their acceptance towards the goals is also high. Th e planning process will result in an informal/formal agreement between the employee and his/her superior and covers the objectives to be achieved, the resources provided to the employee to achieve them as well as the autonomy and flexibility available to him. To plan the performance of the individual, the measurable, understandable, verifiable, equitable, and achievable elements and the standards of the performance appraisals are to be set beforehand. Monitoring Performance In an effective organization, assignments and projects are monitored continuously. Good monitoring implies consistently measuring performance and providing ongoing feedback to employees and work groups on their progress toward reaching their goals. In most countries that have undertaken reforms, considerable emphasis has been placed on performance measurement and monitoring whose two main elements are - the use of KPIs to track performance and relate outlays to output to outcomes. Th e outlay-output-outcome framework also serves as a signifiant accountability mechanism. Monitoring performance includes contrasting and comparing the standards that were set and the targets achieved. Ongoing monitoring also provides the opportunity to check how well employees are meeting predetermined standards and to make changes to unrealistic or problematic standards. Monitoring continuously helps to identify unacceptable performance in the appraisal period itself and can be checked there and then, instead of waiting for the year to end. Developing the Capacity to Perform In order to develop the organization, there is need to assess and address the developmental needs of the employee. Developing in this instance means increasing the capacity to perform through training, giving assignments that introduce new skills or higher levels of responsibility, improving work processes, or other methods. It motivates them for good performance, strengthens job-related skills and competencies, and helps employees keep up with changes in the workplace, such as the introduction of new technology Rating Performance In order to identify the best employees, organizations do a comparative analysis of the performance of the employees. The rating here means evaluating the performance against the performance standards. It is based on work performed during an entire appraisal period. Th e rating of record has a bearing on various other personnel actions, such as granting within-grade pay increases, weightage for career progression and other incentives. Performance appraisal must factor the following considerations: a.    Performance has been defined prior to the appraisal period. b.    Standards & elements of performance are set and clarified to the employee, prior to the appraisal period. c.    The opportunity to improve, must be given to the individual, before categorizing his/her performance. d.    Th e circumstances including resource and other constraints also need to be taken into account while appraising performance. e.    The employer has the right to demand performance and ensure accountabilities. Rewarding Good Performance Organizations seeking good performance from their employees, use rewards as a means to it. Rewarding means recognizing employees, individually and as members of groups, for their performance and acknowledging their contributions to the agency’s mission. A basic principle of effective management is that all behaviour is controlled by its consequences. Good performance is recognized without waiting for nominations for formal awards to be solicited. Recognition is an ongoing, natural part of day-to-day experience. A great deal of the actions that reward good performance – like saying “Thank you” and congratulations on good work do not have any monetary implications. More formal rewards can take the shape of cash incentives, time off and formal recognition. 20.7    Introducing a Performance Management System In implementing PMS in government, it must be emphasized that the PMS has to be designed within the overall strategic framework appropriate to the particular Ministry/ Department/Organization. It is also necessary to link individual contributions to strategic objectives of the organization. It will therefore be necessary for each ministry/department/ organization to customize its PMS relevant to them while incorporating the general features described below: a.    The strategic intent: Th e strategic intent of an organization should cascade into strategic and operational objectives at the departmental level. b.    Individual assessment: This is a process of self-evaluation and structured discussion aimed at personal, professional and individual development. This process is not intended to be merely judgemental but one that is also developmental. It is intended that the process will provide a regular open and systematic discussion of how an individual may enhance his role. The process should be seen as providing a means by which individual contributions are recognized, feedback on individual performances is given, assistance provided to staff in developing their potential and overcoming problems in agreed ways. It is intended that priority will be given to clearly relate strategic goals as there could be resource limitations. Part of the role of the Reviewer - usually the individual staff member’s immediate supervisor is to assist the individual staff member (the person reviewed) in assessing his/her own performance and development regularly and fairly. The role also extends to assisting the person being reviewed in setting objectives and the extent to which the objectives are achieved. Where objectives are not achieved, this can be discussed between the reviewer and the person reviewed in a constructive manner, with a view to identifying the reasons why the objectives were not met and how the situation could be remedied. c.    Development of the individual - effect at departmental and organizational levels: One of the main purposes of the PMS is to provide a systematic means not only of reviewing past performance, but also considering future developments. At the departmental level the system can help identify, agree on and plan staff development activity that in turn can lead to improved departmental planning and performance. It can also facilitate a better understanding of how all staff members contribute to a department’s activities. Such an engagement can also facilitate improved communication between staff members All staff members, regardless of grade or category, have the ability to develop their potential in their area of work. The organization/department is central to enabling the staff to find ways of developing that potential in line with the organisation’s strategic plan. The PMS provides a mechanism for clarifying what is expected in the particular job. It can also help bring about an improved understanding of departmental/organizational objectives and priorities, and how individuals’ work and responsibilities relate to these. There will always be strengths and weaknesses at all levels. Th e process allows these to be identified and the means of overcoming these can be devised. d.    Enhancing quality: Th e development of staff and the delivery of superior quality outcomes is the joint responsibility of individual staff , supervisors and the organisation as a whole. Th e process enables all to agree relevant goals which are clearly linked to strategic plans and objectives of the organisation as a whole. In so far as individual officers are concerned the process will help them to identify their contribution and how it can be improved. e.    Process reviews: Th ese should normally be conducted at least twice a year for all staff . Procedures for all should be similar in their core content but may vary as necessary to account for different responsibilities and management structures. A one-to-one discussion and feedback between the reviewer and the person reviewed should be the normal form of review. f.    Self - monitoring: Whereas the formal review meeting will take place once in a review period, it is important that the person reviewed monitor his/her own progress in achieving objectives on a regular basis throughout the review period. In addition, if the person reviewed feels there are issues or constraints which are preventing her/him from achieving their objectives, they can raise these with the Reviewer or, if necessary the Department Head. Early intervention will assist in the achievement of objectives and a subsequent satisfactory review. To ensure the on-going value and quality of the PMS, it needs to be reviewed on a regular basis, in consultation with staff interests, to ensure that it remains relevant to both the Government departments, and to civil servants. 20.8    The Process of Implementation The process of implementing a performance management system comprises three critical stages: a.    Preparation b.    The review discussion c.    Follow up Stage-1: Preparation A great deal of ground work is required for performance management. It is imperative for the Reviewer to give adequate notice to the person reviewed, prior to the review discussion. Th is being a sensitive issue should be handled carefully. It should be taken care that there is no unnecessary delay on this matter. It is required to make the officer being reviewed understand that the review is a platform where associates can give and take feedback. If the person being reviewed is adequately prepared it would ensure a focused and incisive review. The Reviewer should also be prepared for undertaking a performance management exercise. He/she needs to go back to the goals set out for the person being reviewed, in the previous year and see what was promised. Results over the year should be assigned, by talking to the associate’s circle of influence, comprising his/her boss, peers and juniors. 1 Stage 2: The Review Discussion The review discussion can be further divided into three stages: •    Review •    Explore •    Agree Review involves discussion on performance in the previous year. This is the evaluation of the targets achieved or not achieved, the reasons for the outcomes, the factors that were under control or were out of the control of the employee for the desired results etc. Exploring is an integral part of the goal setting process. Here the ideas should not be imposed on the person being reviewed, instead he/she should be made comfortable for his/her fl ow of idea and the goal setting. Stage 3: Follow up It is necessary to ensure that performance management is a continuous activity and not a once in a year activity. It includes informal review discussions on a periodical basis, encouragement when due and guidance when necessary. It does not envisage castigating an officer or being overtly critical. Th e idea is to let the officer focus on his/her agreed goals and be given the freedom to work but with the stipulation that he/she alone will be accountable for the results/outcome. 20.9    Performance Agreements Performance agreement is the most common accountability mechanism in most countries that have reformed their public administration systems. This has been done in many forms -from explicit contracts to less formal negotiated agreements to more generally applicable principles. At the core of such agreements are the objectives to be achieved, the resources provided to achieve them, the accountability and control measures, and the autonomy and flexibilities that the civil servants will be given. In New Zealand, for example, the Public Finance Act of 1989 provided for a performance agreement to be signed between the chief executive and the concerned minister every year. The performance agreement describes the key result areas that require the personal attention of the chief executive. Th e expected results are expressed in verifiable terms, and include output-related tasks. Th e chief executive’s performance is assessed every year with reference to the performance agreement. The system provides for bonuses to be earned for good performance and removal for poor performance. Th e assessment is done by a third party -the State Services Commission. Due consideration is given to the views of the departmental Minister. A written performance appraisal is prepared. Th e chief executive concerned is given an opportunity to comment, and his/her comments form part of the appraisal. The Centres de Responsibilities in France is another example. Since 1990, many State services at both central and devolved levels have been established as Responsibility Centres in France. A contract with their Ministry gives the Directors greater management flexibility in operational matters in exchange for a commitment to achieve agreed objectives. It also stipulates a method for evaluating results. Contracts, negotiated case by case, are for three years. Reforms in these countries are instructive in the way accountabilities were clarified as a necessary first step. The important part of this clarifying process was that it was done by law. As a result of legal clarification of accountabilities, the civil servant in charge of a department became directly accountable to the departmental Minister through the annual performance agreement that was defined in advance and used as a benchmark for measuring end-of-the-period performance. In India, a provision in the proposed Public Services Law could be incorporated specifying that the heads of the line departments or of the executive agencies whenever they are set up, should sign annual performance agreements with the departmental Minister. The performance agreements should be signed between the departmental Minister and the Secretary of the Ministry as also between the departmental Minister and heads of Department, well before the financial year. The annual performance agreement should provide physical and verifiable details of the work to be done by the Secretary/Head of the Department during the financial year. The performance of the Secretary/Head of the Department should be assessed by a third party – say, the Central Public Services Authority with reference to the annual performance agreement. The details of the annual performance agreements and the results of the assessment by the third party should be provided to the legislature as a part of the Performance Budget/Outcome Budget. 20.10    Summary A good employee performance appraisal system is a pre-requisite for an effective performance management system. The existing performance appraisal system should be strengthened on the following lines: Performance appraisal formats to be made job specific -the appraisal format prescribed for civil servants should have three sections i.e. a generic section that meets the requirements of a particular service to which the officer belongs, 20.11Glossary Making appraisal more consultative and transparent - performance appraisal systems for all Services should be modified on the lines of the recently introduced PAR for the All India Services Government should expand the scope of the present performance appraisal system of its employees to a comprehensive performance management system (PMS). 20.12 Answer to self-check exercisesTo see extent•    20.1,20.5 •    20.6,20.920.13    Suggested reading 1.    Maheshwari S.R. "Civil Service in Great Britain", Concept Publishing Company, 1976. 2.    Goel S.L. "Personnel Administration and Management", Deep and Deep publication, New Delhi, 2002. 3.    Palekar S.A. “Public Personnel administration”, ABD Publisher, New Delhi 2020. 4.    Kumar kar Sushant” public personnel Administration”, Kunal Books Publisher, 2018. 5.    Procter W. Arthur ”Principles of Public Personnel Administration” Forgotten Books Publication, 2022. 337