Officials said the special drive was conducted primarily at places where citizens or small businessmen feel the maximum pinch of corruption in the government machinery.
Charges against the officers include failing "to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acting in a manner unbecoming of a government servant".
Modi govt has forcibly retired many corrupt officials since coming to power in 2014. PM says eradicating the malaise needs sustained, collective effort.
Union minister Jitendra Singh informs Parliament that government took action after reviewing the work of 36,000 Group A and over 82,000 Group B officers.
Promises tend to become irrelevant if care is not taken to create necessary enabling conditions to make them feasible. This is even truer of electoral promises.
Economists say there are weaknesses in India’s GDP data. But statisticians claim the accusations are based on flawed understanding, saying while GDP has problems, the economists are looking in the wrong places.
Both the governments expressed their commitment to strengthening their maritime cooperation to strengthen the maritime safety and security framework in the region.
To days smart definition of corruption or wrong doing appears to be based on principle of pic and choose policy in lieu of uniformly broad based in national interest ( selective methodology) i.e. which side of the table you are sitting before the authority in power and maxim applies for investigation seems ” you show me the face , perhaps the authorised agency may show you the rule of roadmap in seclusion ……no uniformity of application of rules applies for similar cases or department or person. The bribe taker is punishable under law so do the the bribe giver too who may be under constraints. Look the bribe taker is always on superior position plateform unlike bribe giver but giver is made equally accused .Is it not by making bribe giver accused , the very purpose has been defeated by the authority themselves ?
To days smart definition of corruption or wrong doing appears to be based on principle of pic and choose policy in lieu of uniformly broad based in national interest ( selective methodology) i.e. which side of the table you are sitting before the authority in power and maxim applies for investigation seems ” you show me the face , perhaps the authorised agency may show you the rule of roadmap in seclusion ……no uniformity of application of rules applies for similar cases or department or person. The bribe taker is punishable under law so do the the bribe giver too who may be under constraints. Look the bribe taker is always on superior position plateform unlike bribe giver but giver is made equally accused .Is it not by making bribe giver accused , the very purpose has been defeated by the authority themselves ?