Now the blame can fall on the babus in the ministries

After ministers, the government is also conducting performance review in departments

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has recently made a big reshuffle along with expansion in his cabinet. Several ministers were discharged from the cabinet on the basis of their work. Some departments were changed. After the ministers, now it is the turn of the government babus. The Central Government has started reviewing the performance of its Under Secretary level officers in the Central Secretariat Services and above 50 years of age, taking performance as a benchmark.

Under-performing under-secretaries may be removed through an office memorandum based on a review initiated by the Personnel Ministry last week. Let us tell you that the government has ordered a review of the officers of the level of Under Secretary under the Fundamental Rule (FR) 560 1(L) and Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

According to sources, officers taking more number of leave in the prescribed criteria, officers coming under suspicion on integrity/doubtful assets, transactions/corruption or poor medical health record can be discharged. The rules governing the review clearly stipulate that government employees whose integrity is doubtful or found to be ineffective will be retired. Let us tell you that the basic instructions for review were issued in August 2020. As a measure to ascertain whether a Government servant should be retained in service or retired from service prematurely, instructions have been sent to all Central Government Departments and Ministries in the public interest as per the Fundamental Provisions/Rules. The form covers eight basic criteria on which an Under Secretary will be judged.
strict provisions have been made

The government had last year clarified that premature retirement of government employees is not a penalty under these rules. This is different from compulsory retirement, which is one of the penalties prescribed under the CCS rules. The government, before initiating the review exercise, had clarified that the appropriate authority has full authority under the rules to retire a government servant if it is necessary in the public interest. If it retires an officer after review, at least three months’ written notice or three months’ pay and allowances shall be provided to the officer. Ministries and departments were asked to maintain a register which was to be regularly checked at the beginning of every quarter so that the review of premature retirement of government employees could be completed in time. If an officer approves the review process, there is no bar on the government to review any such matter again.