Will Alapan Bandyopadhyay lose his pension?
The Union government has initiated disciplinary proceedings against former West Bengal chief secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay and has asked him to submit his defence within 30 days for missing Prime Minister Narendra Modi's meeting in the aftermath of Cyclone Yaas. In a memo issued on June 16, the Centre said that it was proposing major penalty proceedings against the West Bengal cadre 1987 batch IAS officer under Rule 8 of the All India Services (discipline and appeal) Rules, 1969, and Rule 6 of the All India Services (death-cum-retirement benefits) Rules, 1958. With this, the unsavoury public spat between the Modi-led Centre and the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government over the IAS officer has entered a second and, perhaps, decisive phase. Both sides accuse each other of being driven by political motives and personal vendetta, but the conflicttriggered by an incident on May 28 when the prime minister visited the stateis the most publicised reflection of the growing politicisation of the bureaucracy and disregard for propriety and norms. Lets first understand the background of this battle. On May 28, PM Modis aircraft landed at 2 pm at Kalaikunda airbase in West Bengal. He was on an official visit to take stock of the damage caused by Cyclone Yaas. The prime minister was scheduled to hold a review meeting with the chief minister. However, Mamata and Bandyopadhyay, who was then the chief secretary, were not there to receive the PM as required by protocol. Her aircraft, coming from Sagar, an island in South 24 Parganas, where she had been doing an aerial survey, landed 20 minutes late, and the prime minister had to wait for nearly half an hour to meet the chief minister. According to the chief minister, she had to take off late from Sagar as the prime ministers flight was already airborne. Mamata and Bandyopadhyay entered the meeting room, where Modi was seated with Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar, Union minister Debasree Chaudhuri and leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal assembly, Suvendu Adhikari, but did not take her seat. She submitted a report demanding a Rs 20,000 crore relief package and left for another aerial survey. The review meeting was officially cancelled as no representative of the state government took part in it. Mamata later claimed that she was not informed in advance about the format of the meeting. According to sources, the chief secretary had contacted the PMO officials saying that Mamata wanted a one-on-one meeting with the prime minister, but the request was not accepted. Later, on May 28 evening, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the coordinating agency for personnel matters which controls the transfer/ deputation of IAS officers, sent a letter to Bandyopadhyay asking him to report in Delhi on May 31the day he was supposed to retireat 10 am for further duties. Ironically, four days prior to this, the Union government had extended his service for another three months responding to Mamatas request in view of the chief secretarys experience in handling the Covid-19 pandemic. Instead of reporting in Delhi, Bandyopadhyay decided not to take the extension and retired from service on May 31. The same day, Mamata appointed him as her chief advisor, but just before this he received another notice from Delhi. The Union home ministry issued a show-cause notice to Bandyopadhyay for missing the meeting with the prime minister, calling it a violation of Section 51 (b) of the Disaster Management Act 2005. By abstaining from the review meeting taken by the prime minister, who is also chairman of the National Disaster Management Authority, Bandyopadhyay acted in a manner tantamount to refusing to comply with the lawful directions of the Central government, said the notice. On June 3, Bandyopadhyay replied to the show-cause notice saying he had acted as per the chief ministers instructions. Two weeks later, the Centre initiated disciplinary proceedings against Bandyopadhyay. According to independent observers, propriety and service norms were thrown out of the window at every step of this bitter tussle. There is no clear answer as to why the chief minister and her then chief secretary were not at the airbase to receive the prime minister. The PMs programme doesnt come up suddenly. The state machinery is informed well in advance. If I were in Bandyopadhyays place, I would have convinced the chief minister about the chief secretarys protocol obligation to be present at the review meeting. Even if the CM is unavailable due to unavoidable circumstances, the chief secretary must be present along with other senior officers. None of this happened in this case, which reflects badly on an IAS officer. The prime minister of the country must be given due respect under any circumstances whenever he visits a state, says Kumar Sanjay Krishna, who retired as Assam chief secretary last year. Another central government officer points towards what happened in Odisha. A few hours before his arrival in West Bengal, Modi landed in Bhubaneswar to review the impact of the cyclone in the neighbouring state. Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik and his chief secretary received the prime minister at the airport. On the other hand, though there is no defined protocol about the structure of a review meeting, most political observers concur that the inclusion of Adhikary in the meeting was in bad taste, knowing the political history between him and the chief minister. Once a close aide of Mamata, Adhikari defected to the BJP and defeated her in the Nandigram constituency in the recent assembly election. Not only was the presence of an Opposition leader unusual at a review meeting between the prime minister and a chief minister, Adhikarys inclusion also came across as a blatantly political move. This wasnt about protocol, but tact and wisdom demanded that the PM should not have included his partymen in one-to-one discussions with the CM of a state who belongs to an opposition party, retired super cop Julio Ribeiro, who has also served as special secretary in the Union home ministry, wrote in a column. What happened next after these two inappropriate developments has resulted in an intense public debate. Several bureaucrats support the central governments actions against Bandyopadhyay, saying it was necessary to avoid a repeat of such frictions. Others sympathise with him on the ground that the civil servant had little choice other than follow the chief minister to whom he reports daily. In fact, they even question the legality of the Centres reactionary moves. According to 6(1) of the IAS Cadre Rules 1954, a cadre officer, with the concurrence of the state government concerned and the central government, can be deputed for service under the central government or another state government, subject to the consent of the officer. The Union government must consult with the state government, which must release the officer. In case of a disagreement, the Central governments decision remains final. Though the rulebook does give the final authority to the Centre, in Bandyopadhyays case, due process of seeking his consent and that of the state government was not followed. What also makes Bandyopadhyays summoning look like a hurried political decision is the fact that he had never been empanelled to serve under the central government at the joint secretary level. A non-empanelled officer can only take up positions such as director or under-secretary, much lower in rank than what Bandyopadhyays post was. This was such a stupid decision. Someone should have put his foot down and pointed out the illegality of the order, says G.K. Pillai, former Union home secretary. Even the notice under the DM Act 2005 has been debated as it was not mentioned that the review meeting was convened under the DM Act. According to the All India Service (AIS) Rules, the Centre can impose a penalty on an IAS officerserving or retirementonly after a proper inquiry is conducted by a board consisting of at least two senior officers. The decision must also be approved by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). If found guilty by the commission, Bandyopadhyay may lose his pension benefits, subject to approval of the UPSC. He will, of course, have the option to challenge such a decision legally. Read India Today magazine by downloading the latest issue: https://www.indiatoday.com/emag