Punishing civic officials ‘guilty’ of inaction
By Gajanan Khergamker
Pravin Chheda of the Congress trounced Bhalchandra Shirsad of the BJP in a battle of titans from Ward 124 during the recently-held civic polls. Ironically, Chheda who had been elected on a BJP ticket twice had changed loyalties to the Congress which won the seat for the first time since 1968.
What makes this relevant to the RTI cause is the sitting corporator was among the three contesting for civic polls and had his name on the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s list.
Right to Information activist Jeetendra Ghadge had filed an application seeking to know the cases registered against them and their progress to know the track record of the corporators. The record revealed that as per the details provided from 2007 to 2011, six corporators booked by the ACB included Pravin Chheda, Rajul Patel, Babasaheb Bansode, Kumar Pande, Manmohan Chonkar and Vishakha Vilas Pednekar.
That corruption would be a huge factor in the present elections was a supposed given considering the proximate timing with Anna Hazare’s tirade against the Centre for the Lokpal Bill. However, the recent poll outcome proved that a candidate’s personal popularity among masses, on his own dint, had a further reach than the political party he represented, even if there were strong charges of corruption or insinuations of misdemeanor in public domain.
With the city fathers having failed to maintain a blemish-free reputation, there’ seems to be little hope for the public servant in a corporation known for corruption.
At the grass-root level, within the corporation, the commonest form of corruption as National Alliance for People Movement Simpreet Singh rightly pointed out — and one which is rarely detected and almost never punished — is deliberate failure by officials to take action.
It isn’t without reason that law-abiding citizens are left extremely exasperated when the authorities refuse to take action against violators, even when written complaints and evidences are submitted to them.
Or they take action in such a defective way that it guarantees the action fails. Or they prematurely drop the matter or withdraw the action, letting the wrong-doers go scot-free. The sincere efforts of citizens are frustrated by such ploys.
A circular issued in 2003, specifies maximum and minimum punishment for BMC employees who turn their faces when unauthorised works are carried out in their jurisdiction.
This Circular no. CE/Conf./1332/Eng. of 20/11/’03 lists out punishments (including censures, fines, withholding of increments, dismissal and removal from service) to be awarded in case of departmental enquiries pertaining to offences committed while taking action against unauthorised works or unauthorised change of user under provisions of BMC Act and/or MRTP (Maha-rashtra Regional Town Planning) Act. This circular refers to an earlier circular no. AO/SV/780 dated 7/6/1987, which broadly standardised the departmental enquiries and punishment awarded for offences committed by municipal employees.
“In this circular, punishment to be awarded against unauthorised works/unauthorised change of user are not explicitly mentioned. Hence, in continuation of the above circular, here go the below guidelines:
1. Failure to detect unauthorised work / unauthorised change of user
(a) Unauthorised work of minor nature not involving addition to F.S.I. as well as those not detrimental to the structure. Maximum Punishment — Fine upto Rs. 1,000/- ; Minimum
Punishment – Censure.
(b) Unauthorised work not involving addition to F.S.I. but detrimental to the structure. Maximum Punishment — Removal from service; Minimum Punishment — Withholding of next increment for 1 year with permanent effect on future increment.
(c) Addition to F.S.I.
(i) Residential. Maximum Punish-ment — Removal from service. Minimum Punishment — Withholding of next increment for one year with permanent effect on future increment.
(ii) Commercial. Same as above.
(d) Change of user from Resident-ial to Commercial and/or Industrial. Maximum Punishment — Withholding of next increment for one year with permanent effect on future increment. Minimum — Censure / Fine upto Rs. 1,000/-
(e) Change of user from Commer-cial / Industrial to Residential. Punishments — Same as (d).
(f) Change of User from Industrial to Commercial and vice-versa. Punishments — Same as (d).
2.Work detected but action not taken.
Maximum — Removal from service. Minimum — Withholding of next increment for two years with permanent effect on future increment.
3. Action under relevant provisions of Act taken but not pursued vigorously.
Maximum — Removal from service. Minimum — Withholding of next increment for 1 year with permanent effect on future increment.
4. Action pursued in a defective way so as to ensure that action fails.
Maximum – Dismissal from service. Minimum – Removal from service.
5. Action withdrawn/dropped un-authorisedly without competent sanction.
This includes tampering of records. Maximum – Dismissal from service. Minimum – Removal from service.
Circular Could Exert Pressure
Issued under the signature of the Municipal Commissioner, the circular could exert pressure on the disciplinary authorities to punish municipal employees guilty of such actions.
“We should ask the Municipal Commissioner and the Chief Minister: Sir, how many municipal employees in Mumbai have been punished so far as outlined by the circular in 2003?” offered RTI activist Krishnaraj Rao.
Incidentally, by their own deposition, the richest civic corporation admits before RTI activists and the High Court buildings violating the law are way too many to enumerate, thousands of corrupt municipal employees should have been punished since November 2003 till date.
(Readers keen on seeking help on drafting RTI applications may write in to rti@draftcraft.in or call Gajanan Khergamker on 022-32010593 for any assistance on RTI or to have their findings / issue featured on this page)
