The coal scam of UPA-2 finally nailed the former coal secretary H C Gupta on May 22. A special CBI judge sentenced him to two-year imprisonment and imposed a fine of `1 lakh. As the head of the screening committee, he was found guilty of recommending allotment of 40 coal mining rights without following the guidelines and withholding the reasons for non-compliance of those guidelines from the then prime minister, causing loss to the national exchequer that ran in crores.
His conviction has evoked misplaced outpouring of support from his fraternity. The IAS Officers’ Association is upset that an honest officer has been punished for following a political decision. But was not he supposed to adhere to only rules? The Association argues that his service record and reputation, and whether he financially benefitted from the allotment of the coal blocks should have been considered before holding him guilty. But how is a wrongdoing committed in 2008 relevant to his past credentials?
His cadre mates in UP foresee a paralysis in decision-making and fear that no officer would dare recommend or reject a proposal. An officer wryly remarks that if the same yardstick is universally applied, most officers would be in jail by now. He is right in a way. The corruption is so pervasive that if the CBI and Income Tax department begin seriously looking into the assets of civil servants and politicians, 90 per cent of them will indeed go to jail.
Gupta may not have shared the loot, but he did compromise on his mental integrity by responding to political calls from exalted quarters. There is also no denying that he obtained PM’s approval on the file, but he swung that by misrepresenting facts. In any case, a politician is not supposed to be an expert of rules and he has neither the time nor mental resources to assess a proposal. He goes by what his officers recommend.
Admittedly, most Indian politicians crave ill-gotten wealth. But the real culprits are the bureaucrats who lit the path for them to chase this dirty pursuit. Officers do so either to serve the interests of their career and family, or to share the spoils. Politicians have been quick to exploit this weakness. They make pliable officers interpret rules so that they benefit financially and escape prosecution. It is a quid pro quo all the way.
It is interesting how different officers react to such common sense ploy of politicians. Some refuse to bend rules for them. They are promptly transferred and side-lined. Those adept in making ‘tailored’ proposal to suit political directions, move up smoothly in their career and build disproportionate financial assets. Then, we have those who manipulate their official position to favour political masters, but themselves remain honest. All such officers walk on sharp edges and wait to have cuts when they fall.
A few cases will illustrate this situation better. A Maharashtra chief minister once asked his municipal commissioner to allot a land to one of his relatives. The officer wrote on file that it would be illegal to do so. The CM went ahead and allotted the land. The commissioner complied with the order. The Supreme Court later chided the officer for obeying an illegal order, but let him off because of his dissenting note on the file, and cancelled the allotment.
In a more bizarre incident, I was instructed by the Madhya Pradesh government to provide a police jeep to late Sanjay Gandhi. I refused because he did not hold a government office. I was scolded and threatened with an imminent transfer. The SP of the neighbouring district made the vehicle available which unfortunately met with an accident during the rally. After the Congress lost elections and the Janata Dal government came to power, the Shah Commission was constituted to investigate the Emergency excesses. It also inquired into the damage to the vehicle and made the SP cough up `80,000, a big amount those days.
Since courting risk had become a habit by then, I refused to let a J&K Chief Minister land his state aircraft on a restricted airfield, despite threats of punitive action from top civil servants of the country. My discrete inquiries later revealed that the aircraft also carried six persons who were on IB’s watch list for links with terrorists.
Gupta’s conviction makes a few things abundantly clear. First, you cannot complain of being crucified by pretending to be personally honest. Losing intellectual integrity is equally punishable. Second, decisions taken ‘in public interest’ or ‘good faith’ must be legally tenable. Third, the civil servants have the choice of either leaving behind an honourable legacy or amassing wealth, hoping erroneously that law will not catch up with them. Finally, the protection to officers will not come from amending the Anti-Corruption Act, but from the courage in following rules.
Amar Bhushan
Former special secretary, Research and Analysis Wing
amarbhushan@hotmail.com