The Executive is not only an integral part of the governance set-up but a wing of the Constitution. The government, in its day-to-day working, has to deal with scores of tasks for which it has personnel from the level of Secretary down to that of peon. Apart from performing functions, which include important policy decisions, the government has to play a quasi-judicial role regarding discipline, governance and regulation of the conditions of service of its personnel.
But litigation between the government and its servants reached such levels that it led to the constitution of a Central Administrative Tribunal by a Parliamentary Act under Article 323-A of the Constitution in 1985. The Tribunal has since, with a country-wide network in the form of Benches, successfully achieved the objective of disposal within six months of such disputes. Further, this is accomplished in a cost-effective and non-complicated manner.
Though, in the course of discharge of administrative functions, government servants have been committing irregularities, cases regarding promotion, unsettled seniority and individual grievances of removal and dismissal from service are the commonest.
When a case shows up basic legal infirmities,
and this is brought to the notice of the gov
ernment by the Tribunal and the courts, no
rectification is undertaken to prevent any rep
etition in future. This leads to waste of money
A major problem is that when a case shows up basic legal infirmities, and this is brought to the notice of the government by the Tribunal and the courts, no rectification is undertaken to prevent any repetition in future. Thus, this leads to multifarious litigation and also wastage of government money.
Though institutions like the Central Vigilance Commission have been established, yet to err is a part of human nature. But the orders passed by the Tribunal and the courts are not taken in the right perspective for legal teaching and remembrance of law, so that the fault in the administrative process can be corrected in time. Had there been a vigilant attitude, there would have been a marked difference in approach.
Another aspect is that, while discharging administrative or quasi-judicial functions, government servants do not exercise discretion. There are safeguards to ensure that no government servant is victimized or imparted the sort of treatment that he does not deserve legally under the Constitution. But there are government servants who resort to illegal and immoral ways to satisfy their ulterior objectives and they should not be spared. When these persons are proceeded against, some small illegality allows them to go scot-free. This is hardly congenial to the system. Rather it encourages such people and sets a bad example for others. It promotes negativity.
Thus, in the matter of governance, even the Executive must apply its mind and keep in consideration the rules, principles of natural justice and dicta laid down by the courts and the Tribunal so that its actions are free of anything that can bring about litigation. This will contribute to satisfaction at the working of the government, which is in the public interest.
