The Union Public Service Commission’s decision to cancel the provisional candidature of Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar for the Civil Services Examination 2022 and permanently debar her from all future examinations/selections was more stringent than the action that could have been taken by the director of the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy Of Administration under the IAS probation rules 1954.
She could been have discharged under Rule 111 or dismissed under Rule 112, but after following the provisions of Article 311(2), of course. It bears recalling that the directors of LBSNAA and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy (SVPNPA) had failed to ‘discharge’ IAS probationer VK Singh of the 1981 batch and IPS probationer Jaiswal of the 1980 batch. It is also important to note that both the academies were, at that point in time, ‘attached offices’ of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) was established only in the year 1985.
Singh’s case
Let me first discuss Singh’s case, for it led to then-director of LBSNAA, PS Appu, taking the unprecedented step of writing directly to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 3 March 1982. The government reversed its stand and discharged Singh within two days. That the Allahabad High Court came to his relief and reinstated him on account of procedural and technical lapses in his discharge is also a case study by itself from which we can draw lessons based on our perspective. The cynic will think that it is possible to manipulate the system, but those like us will draw the lesson that while passing executive instructions or quasi-judicial orders — whether it be for land acquisition, disciplinary proceedings, or cases under the Citizenship Act — attention should be paid not just ‘to the spirit, but also to the letter of the law’.
Now, to the facts of this particular case. In October 1982, Appu was aghast to learn that a probationer had brandished a gun in inebriated conditions on two of his female batchmates while on an official trek to the Himalayas. Appu sent the officer (Singh) on compulsory leave and had a preliminary enquiry conducted by a deputy director who confirmed the allegations. Appu wrote to the DoPT secretary (which was still part of the MHA) on 28 October, recommending action against him under the relevant sections of IAS probation rules. As the government sat on his letter for over two months, he sent a reminder on 28 December, in which he made it clear that if his recommendation was not accepted, he would not like to continue as the director, for this made his position quite untenable. Much to his dismay, the government again sat on it for another six weeks, and finally, in a confidential letter to him on 4 February 1982. The DoPT secretary wrote to him that the government “had decided to let off the probationer with a warning”. A principled man who stuck to his word, he decided to proceed on leave preparatory to retirement with effect from 1 March 1982.
He then wrote the letter to the PM, which shook the conscience of the country. The letter read: “It is unusual for a civil servant, howsoever senior he is, to write directly to the Prime Minister. I am resorting to this unconventional step because I see no other way to bring to the Prime Minister’s notice a case of grave misconduct on the part of an Indian Administrative Service officer and the cavalier manner in which the Home Ministry disposed off the matter. Since I was leaving the IAS on this issue, I thought I will be failing in my duty if I did not bring the relevant facts to the Prime Minister’s office.”
After a brief recital of the case, he concluded that the home ministry’s decision to “let off lightly a probationer who indulged in grave misconduct” would lead the probationers to conclude that “with influence in the right quarters, one can commit even heinous crimes with impunity. This decision will have a disastrous effect on discipline and morale in the service in general, and at the national academy in particular. In the circumstances, I thought, no useful purpose will be served by my continuing in the post of Director. As a senior officer, if I failed to take this step, I would, in effect be acquiescing in the action of the Home Ministry”.
As Parliament was in session, Appu’s resignation letter created a furore. The government reversed its position and proceeded to terminate Singh’s services on 5 March 1982. Singh decided to seek legal recourse in the Allahabad High Court. Two years later, on 24 April 1984, the high court quashed the government order — not on the substantial issue of the merits of the case — but on account of the procedural failure on the part of the government to allow Singh to present his case. The high court said: “As the impugned order is being struck down only on the grounds of non-compliance of provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and Rule 11(2) of the IAS (probation) rules 1954, it is being made clear that it will be open for the Central government to take disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner (VK Singh) even now under the aforesaid provisions for the alleged misconduct of the probationer.”
However, neither Appu’s successor nor the government followed up on this part of the judgment due to reasons best known to the home ministry or Cabinet Secretary Krishnaswamy Rao Saheb. For the record, Singh did not deny the charges: He said he was provoked by the English-speaking girls who called him a ‘Bihari’. Many feel that the Cabinet Secretary and the home department were complicit in letting him off the hook — and with the quick turnover of deputy directors at the academy, the issue lost much of its steam.
Ironically, in 2006, Appu was awarded the Padma Bhushan, but Saheb received an even higher recognition — a Padma Vibhushan.
Also read: An American helped IAS officers like me ask the right questions—why James Scott is important
Anoop Jaiswal’s case
Let’s get back to the question of why the high court took this view. They were basing themselves on a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of an IPS probationer Anoop Jaiswal who had challenged his discharge from the IPS by the SVPNPA. Rules 11 and 12 of the IAS and IPS probation rules are identical. In this case, Jaiswal was accused of not only being late for the PT class but also instigating others to do the same. In the show cause issued to him, he acknowledged that he was late but denied the charge of instigating others. The Supreme Court held that if the discharge was because the candidate was unsuitable without adducing any charge of moral turpitude, it came within the provisions of Rule 11. But if the discharge was because of a specific act of commission or omission, then the procedure of issuing a notice, giving time to reply, conducting a proper enquiry, and passing a speaking order had to be complied with. Thus, Jaiswal was reinstated into the IPS.
Both episodes left the faculty of these institutions with a sense of ennui – and not until Rajiv Gandhi became the PM in November 1984 was the salience of training institutions and their directors resurrected.
System didn’t detect loopholes
Another point needs to be made emphatically. The credit for bringing to light the initial misdemeanours of Puja Khedkar came from the intrepid members of the fourth estate, their follow-up stories, and the indignation of the social media on her conduct compounded by that of her family members. But there is a counterfactual — what if she had kept a low profile, carried on with her training quietly, got even more entrenched into the system, and reached a point where she became more or less invincible?
The UPSC acted swiftly, yes, but the loopholes were not detected by the system. After all, someone in the system helped her fudge her identity, ‘accepted’ her unauthorised medical certificate, and missed the fact that she had made more attempts than she was entitled to. This someone is not one individual; many or all of them may still be in service. One hopes that all these points have been covered in the report prepared by Additional Secretary Manoj Dwivedi.
Debarring Khedkar alone is not enough. All those who conspired with her — whether in the direct act of commission or omission — must face exemplary punishment. Let a second medical board under AIIMS also look into cases of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs) whose names and profiles are now viral on social media for having entered the services by depriving those who were truly eligible.
Last, but not the least, now that Preeti Sudan has taken the mantle of the UPSC, one hopes that she takes steps to rewrite the manual regarding eligibility, syllabi, examination, interview process, and norms for earmarking seats in different categories ‘ab initio’. As pointed out by ex-diplomat Katju in a recent column in The Telegraph, the UPSC still includes “subjects of Nepal” and refugees from Tibet who arrived in India before 1962 as eligible to take 18 of the 21 services to which the CSE selects officers.
Sanjeev Chopra is a former IAS officer and Festival Director of Valley of Words. Until recently, he was Director, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration. He tweets @ChopraSanjeev. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)