Control over Public Administration | Essay | Public Administration

Here is an essay on the ‘Control over Public Administration’ for class 9, 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on the ‘Control over Public Administration’ especially written for school and college students.

The civil servants play vital role in the modern social welfare states. The public servant today is not a mere docile executor of the public policy but is very largely its initiator and formulator. In fact, he is the main-spring of administration. He supplies the expert knowledge to the administration and being an expert he controls the administration. He enjoys wide discre­tionary powers and exercises great influence in the body politic. It is but necessary that means be devised to secure effective control over public servant lest he may become irresponsible and despot.

Administration is a means of public welfare. The people have a live interest in seeing that public administration is both responsible and efficient. The public officials should be made responsible to appropriate authorities. They must be liable to give a satisfactory account of the exercise of their powers. There are certain controls through which administrative responsibility is enforced.

Broadly speaking, there are two main types of controls, namely,- (i) external (or political) controls, and (ii) internal (or administrative) controls. The external controls operate upon the administration from the outside. They work within the general constitutional structure and may differ from country to country. Thus, administration in the U.S.A. with a Presidential system of government may not be responsible to external bodies to the same extent as in Great Britain with a parliamentary government.

The internal controls are those which operate within the administration itself. These are fitted into the administrative machinery and work automatically as the machinery moves. Both the types of controls, external and.internal, are supplementary and complementary. As we know the administrative machine of the present times is very vast and complicated. In a simpler society the political administrator can be held responsible for everything that goes on inside his department since he is able to know all that is happening within his sphere of responsibility.

But today, the situation is very different. It has become difficult for the political administrator to maintain close link with the administration. It has, therefore, become necessary that external controls must be supplemented and completed by administrative controls acting within. Thus internal controls and external controls are supple­mentary. It is only if both the controls work satisfactorily that the administrative machine will work efficiently.

First we shall take up the study of external controls.

External Controls over Public Administration:

The external control over public administration may be considered from four main standpoints, namely – of the executive, of the legislature, of the judiciary and of the community, respectively.

A. Executive Control over Administration:

Every official is responsible to and under the control of his administrative superiors who are known as Ministers in a Parliamentary Government. The minister is responsible for all what goes within his department. The doctrine of ministerial responsibility is a cardinal principle of Parliamentary system. If a mistake is made by a civil servant in a Department, The Minister in charge of the Department is held responsible ven if he k new nothing about it or he was not consulted by the official concerned before taking the action.

In India, ministers had to resign for the mistakes committed by the officials in their departments.

The minister or executive exercises control over administration through the following methods:

1. Political Direction:

The Minister has the power of direction, control and supervi­sion. He has full authority to manage and direct his Department. His writ runs throughout the sections and branches of the Department. He lays down the policy and looks to its implemen­tation. He issues directives to the departmental, officials. No important decision can be taken without bringing the matter to his notice.

He may concentrate the entire authority in his hands and reduce the Secretary to a cipher. He may call for any and every file and issue the direction that no action on particular kind of matters will be taken except by him. He may go round the Department in order to supervise its working. He may issue orders to eradicate red-tapism and increase efficiency.

He may transfer the officials from one branch to another and make changes in the allocation of work. In short, the officials work under his general direction, control and supervision. In other words, the departmental officials are directly and wholly responsible to him.

However, it may be noted that in actual practice civil servants are not always dictated to by the ministers, but they also lead and dictate. Being experts the civil servants exercise sub­stantial influence on the Ministers in the policy-formulation and its implementation.

Secondly, it may also be noted that the extent of control of a minister over his department rests on his political position. If the minister enjoys the full confidence of the Prime Minister and has a strong base in the party, he can deal effectively with bureaucracy. But if he is politically non- assertive his control over administration may be weak.

A strong-willed Prime Minister may reduce a minister to mere a non-entity. Thus, a minister’s control over administration depends not only on the legal or constitutional system of the country, but also upon his political strength.

2. Budgetary System:

The budgetary system which determines the total financial and personnel resources which no department may exceed gives the executive an effective means of control over administration. The civil servant has to work within the budgetary allocation.

He cannot spend a single penny without the proper sanction from the higher authorities. The money is to be spent according to the financial rules. Proper accounts are to be maintained which are subject to audit. Under an effective budgetary system, the administration is under the constant control of the executive.

3. Recruitment System:

Another important means of executive control over adminis­tration is recruitment system. Generally, recruitment to civil service is placed in the hands of Public Service Commission—an independent body. The general rules of recruitment are laid down by the Government. The qualifications, experience, age, etc., required for different posts are determined by the executive.

It has also the power to exclude certain posts from the pur­view of the Public Service Commission. To the higher posts of the civil service, the executive has a free hand. The ministers select their own secretaries and heads of departments. Thus through their appointees, they exercise full control over the administration of the department.

4. Executive Legislation:

The executive exercises power of legislation which is termed ‘Delegated Legislation’. The Legislature passes an Act in a skeleton form and empowers the executive to fill in the details. The rules framed by the executive have the force of law.

The scope of administrative law making is very wide in the modern social welfare states. These administrative rules determine the authority of the different officials in the department.

The executive control on administration is constant and continuous. According to Prof Nigro, “Executive controls are most important for their positive development and enforcement of standards and safeguards in the actual operation of substantive departments”. They give a positive and continuous guidance to the administration. They keep the administration always alert.

Executive controls are not negative or coercive but positive and corrective, Prof Nigro says, “The closest most influential form of control is in my judgment that of executive agencies of the auxiliary type. I must risk the heretical statement that a good budget staff and a good personnel office will do more to preserve the liberties of the people than a good court, because they will be in operation long before a potential wrong is done.”

B. Parliamentary Control over Public Administration:

In all systems, parliamentary or presidential, control of the administration by the legisla­ture is important. In a parliamentary system, such as in India or Great Britain, it is of primary importance because all state activities emanate from the legislature. The cardinal principle of parliamentary system is the responsibility of the executive to the legislature. The executive therefore cannot afford to be irresponsible. It has to be responsible for each and every act of its civil servants. The responsibility of administration is thus indirect because it is enforced through the executive. The official cannot be called to the floor of the House to explain his act. It is the Minister who shoulders the responsibility for the administrative acts of his department. If he is unable to satisfy Parliament, he has to quit office. Sometimes, the entire ministry may have to quit the office because ministerial responsibility in a parliamentary system is collective. Thus we find that the legislature’s control on administration is indirect, i.e., through the executive.

The various means through which the legislature in a parliamentary form of government enforces responsibility are the following:

1. Law-Making Process:

The legislature makes the law which determines the organisation, functions and procedures of public administration. A new department may be created to give effect to a particular law enacted by the Parliament. However, the legislature’s control through the law-making process is very general. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the legislature to attempt to lay down in details the administrative procedures to be followed.

Generally, the task of laying down the detailed rules is left to the executive which is known as ‘Delegated Legis­lation’. But the executive makes the rules within the ambit of its authority delegated by the legislature. It cannot transgress the limits of its authority. Sometimes, the legislature may re­quire these rules to be placed before it for approval.

In India we have a committee on Del­egated Legislation to examine these rules and report back to the House about their authenticity. Just as the legislature may create new powers and functions, similarly it may make changes in them. It may also give the executive the power to make essential adjustments. Thus in a gen­eral way the organisation of public administration is determined by the legislature.

2. Question-Hour:

In the parliamentary system, the ministers are the members of the legislature. They attend its sessions and are present in the House to reply to the questions put by the members of the legislature. In every parliamentary system, there is the practice of set­ting apart one hour of Parliament’s meeting time for questions which is called ‘Question-Hour’.

The members may ask questions regarding any act or omission of administrative authorities, from the highest to the lowest. The Ministers concerned prepare their answers and reply to the questions on the floor of the House. Supplementary questions may also be put.

Through questions public grievances can be ventilated, administrative lapses may be brought to notice and information on any matter may be solicited. The questions keep the civil servants alert.

They have to brief their Minister to enable him to answer the questions. It necessitates the careful record-keeping of every transaction or case, for there is no knowing about what matter a ques­tion may be tabled. Sometimes the questions are so embarrassing to the government that it is compelled to take immediate appropriate measures.

Hugh Gaitskell once said, “Anybody who has ever worked in a Civil Service Department would agree with me that if there is one major thing which leads Civil Servants to be excessively cautious, timid and careful and to keep records which outside the civil service would be regarded as unnecessary, it is the fear of the Parliamentary question.”

The question exercises a very healthy check on administration. W.B. Munro says, “It is an effective check upon those bureaucratic tendencies which are bound to appear in every govern­ment. It keeps the experts responsive to a body of laymen. As a palladium of his rights and liberties it is worthy to be ranked with trial by jury and the writ of Habeas Corpus.”

Although the motive of these questions may be political, i.e., to sink the minister at whom they are directed or the government to which he belongs, yet they play an important part in the mecha­nism of control over Public Administration.

The question hour has been described as a search­light turned on the activities of administration. Due to Parliamentary questions, administration is carried against a background of awareness of responsibility to Parliament and the public.

This keeps the administration ‘open’. Albert C. writes, “There is no more valuable safeguard against maladministration, no more effective method of bringing the searchlight of criticism to bear on the action or inaction of the executive government and its subordinates. A minister has to be constantly asking himself not merely whether his proceedings and the proceedings of those for whom he is responsible are legally or technically defensible, but what kind of answer he can give if questioned about them in the House, and how that answer will be received.”

The device of questions, according to Lowell, helps greatly “not only to keep the administra­tion up to the mark, but to prevent growth of a bureaucratic arrogance.” In short, questions represent a very powerful method of parliamentary control over administration.

The Question Hour in the Parliament keeps the civil servant on his toes. It compels him to be alert and circumspect in his actions and often prevents acts of petty injustice commonly associated with bureaucracy.

3. Budgetary System:

A more effective means of control over administration by the Legislature is through the budgetary system. We have seen earlier that budgetary system places control of the administration in the hands of the executive. However, at the same time it en­ables the legislature also to exercise a varied control over administration.

The legislature passes the budget every year and authorizes expenditure. No money can be spent by the administra­tion without proper authorization from the legislature. With its control over the national purse the legislature defines closely the activities which the departments may undertake.

It is com­monly said ‘one who pays the piper calls the tune.’ When the budget is before the Parliament, the members get an opportunity to review the functioning of administration.

The members criticize the policies of the government and bring to light its failures. The Ministers take note of such criticisms and make necessary changes in the administration.

Though in a parliamen­tary system, the legislature cannot turn down the Executive’s request for grants so long as the Executive has majority in the House, yet the budget provides an occasion for the Parliament to review, scrutinize, examine, criticize and influence the functioning of public administration.

4. Audit and Report:

The activities of government are now-a-days so widespread that the legislature does not have the time for detailed investigation of the financial transactions of administration. This is done by the Auditor and Comptroller-General who in India is a creation of the Constitution. He functions independent of the executive control and is to all intents an officer of the legislature.

He audits all expenditure from the revenues of the Union or States, incurred in and outside India and ascertains whether moneys shown in the accounts as having been disbursed were legally available for and applicable to the service or the purpose to which they have been applied or charged and whether the expenditure conforms to the authority who governs it.

Audit brings to notice of the Parliament procedural and technical irregularities and lapses on the part of administration.

The officials are held to account for such irregularities and lapses on their part. The Public Accounts Committee of the Legislature thereafter scrutinizes the Report and reviews the financial dealings of the different departments of the Government. It reports back to the Parliament and the latter discusses Auditor General’s Report according to the findings of the committee.

Besides, in India and U.K., Estimates Committee examines the estimates of the Ministries before they are voted upon by the Parliament. The recommendations of the committees are considered by the Government and non-implementation is to be brought to the notice of the committees.

5. Debates and Discussions:

Debates and discussions are a very important occasion for the Parliament to examine and scrutinize the activities and efficiency of various governmen­tal agencies. The inaugural address of the President, the Budget Speech, introduction of a bill for amendment of an Act or enactment of new law, introduction of Motions or Resolutions provide an occasion for debates and discussions.

When the President opens the session of the Parliament, the speech delivered by him is discussed in the Parliament before a ‘Vote of Thanks’ is passed. In the course of discussion the members of Parliament criticize the administration for its lapses and failures.

The Budget Speech of the Finance Minister provides another opportunity to the Parliament to review and criticize the functioning of administration. Budget debates, it may be said, are very important from the viewpoint of parliamentary control over administra­tion.

These debates are known as the great annual national “inquisitions”. At the time of con­sidering demands for grants of the various departments, the Parliament examines and scruti­nizes the working of the whole department. Whenever a bill is introduced for enactment of a new law or amendment of an old Act, the Parliament again gets an opportunity to review the functioning of administration.

There are several other devices of drawing the attention of the Government to a problem pertaining to administration. Among such devices we may include different motions such as No-confidence Motion, Adjournment Motion, Censure Motion and Call-Attention Motion.

The meaning of No-confidence Motion is simple. It is a motion expressing lack of confidence in the Ministry on account of some of its serious lapses, failures and inefficiency. If passed, it will lead to resignation of the Government.

According to the Rules of Procedure of Indian Parlia­ment, a No confidence motion must be supported by fifty members for its admission. The Adjournment Motion is introduced to discuss a definite issue of urgent public importance.

Some­thing very grave such as terrorists attacks in Bombay on November 26, 2008 which affects the whole country, its safety, its interests and all that is happening must have occurred to substan­tiate the urgency of the Motion.

The ostensible purpose of an adjournment motion is to censure the Government and influence its decision. Consent of the Speaker and support by at least fifty members of the House is essential for admitting the motion.

A censure motion can be moved against the Ministry or an individual minister or a group of ministers for their failure to act or not to act or for their policy, expressing regret, indignation or surprise of the House.

A Call- Attention Motion may be introduced by a member of the Parliament with the permission of the chair to draw the attention of a Minister to a matter of urgent public importance and request him to make a statement thereon.

In the Indian Parliament, there are two other occasions for discussing the administrative activities of a department. These are:

(i) Half-an-hour discussion, and

(ii) Short Discussion.

The half-an-hour discussion follows the Question-Hour. When a member feels dissatisfied with the answer given to his question, he may request the chair to allow Half-an-Hour discussion on the particular matter which was the subject of his Question.

During this short discussion of half-an-hour, the House may extract more information on the subject, may seek further clarifi­cation of the policy, may ventilate the public grievances or put more pressure upon the Govern­ment to modify its policy. The Business Rules of the Indian Parliament also provide for short discussions on a mat­ter of urgent public importance for a short time not exceeding two and a half hours.

The value of debates and discussion is that they compel the Government to explain and defend particular issues of their policy at length. It also enables the opposition to expose the weak points of administration.

Speaking about the importance of debates and discussions as a means of control over administration, Shri N.V. Gadgil says “In brief by question and debate, administration is kept under constant and continuous review. The most trivial detail may be fraught with enormous consequences as the opposition utilizes its whole time in spotting the Executive’s weak points, and once it catches them it has boundless opportunities to hammer them constantly.”

6. Appointment of Committees:

The appointment by the legislature of committees from its own membership is another method of exercising control over administration. In the Indian Parliament there is a Committee on Assurances. The Ministers make some promises or assurances on the floor of the House in the course of debates, discussions and questions.

It is the duty of the parliament to see that the assurances given to the parliament are implemented by the Government. Before the setting up of Committee on Assurances it was left to the indi­vidual members to keep a watch whether promises were being implemented. But since the creation of this Committee, it is the function of the Committee to see that promises made to the House are fulfilled.

The Committee scrutinizes the assurances, promises and undertakings given by the Ministers from time to time on the floor of the House and reports on:

(a) The extent to which such assurances, promises, undertakings have been implemented, and

(b) Where imple­mented whether such implementation has taken place within the minimum time necessary for the purpose. The establishment of the Committee on Assurances has greatly strengthened the machinery of Parliamentary control over the administration.

According to M.N. Kaul, it “has helped not only to keep vigil on the administrative efficiency, but has also helped in removing many of the defects inherent in the previous system. The Ministers are now careful in giving promises and the administration is prompt enough to take action on the promises given. The various Ministries of the government are now conscious of their duties towards Parliament.”

The other committees which help the Parliament to keep close watch over administration are the Estimates Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the Committee on Public Under­takings and the Committee on Subordinate Legislation. The Public Accounts Committee, Esti­mates Committee and the Committee on Public Undertakings are mainly concerned with financial administration.

The role of these Committees in maintaining parliamentary control over public finances and appropriations has been described elsewhere. The Committee on Subordi­nate Legislation scrutinizes and examines the administrative legislation, i.e., rules, orders and regulations, made by the executive in pursuance of the power delegated to it by the Parliament.

This Committee has performed very useful functions and keeps subordinate legislation under control.

In addition to the above committees, the Parliament also appoints special committees from time to time to make enquiry into any particular matter. These Committees interview officials and public men, gather evidence, collect material and report back to the House.

Their report is discussed in the House which again throws the administration open to criticism. The Commit­tees are thus a highly effective means of exercising control over administration. We have described above the methods of legislative control over administration in a par­liamentary system.

According to certain critics, the role of legislature in this regard is quite limited on account of following reasons:

First, the size of the legislature is large one. On account of its large size it cannot exercise effective control.

Second, the members of the legislature are laymen whereas the members of administra­tion are very technical and specialized.

Third, its decisions are general and it is greatly dependent upon the executive for the content of legislation.

Fourth, the majority of the members belong to the ruling party and there are few chances of no-confidence motion or censure motion being passed against the government.

Fifth, the financial committees do postmortem work. They check the expenditure after it has been incurred.

Sixth, in parliamentary system the legislature is a tool in the hands of the cabinet.

Last, most of its criticism is political, the chief end being to dislodge the government.

Whatever the limitations, the legislator enjoys a privileged position vis-a-vis administra­tion. By free and unfettered discussions on the floor of the House he can exercise healthy influence upon the administration.

But continuous and constant pin-pricking makes the minister and bureaucrats in his department timid and reluctant to shoulder responsibility. Such a practice eventually proves harmful to proper functioning of Parliamentary democracy which is based on harmonious combination of the amateur politician and expert administrator.

Legislative Control over Administration:

Whatever has been said above of legislative control over administration holds true of parliamentary system. Under the Presidential system of government of U.S.A. most of the means of legislative control described above are not available.

Thus the legislature in a Presidential system can neither put questions to the Ministers nor can it pass a No-confidence or Censure Motion against the government. The executive does not sit in the Congress. It does not necessarily have the majority support in the Houses of Congress.

Under a Presidential system the Congress can exercise control over administration through the following methods:

(i) It defines the organisation, powers and duties of the administrative authorities.

(ii) It appoints legislative committees for investigation of administration;

(iii) It makes laws laying down policies, methods and procedures;

(iv) It controls the national purse, sanctions expenditure through appropriation acts, fixes the purpose and amounts of expenditure, passes tax legislation and examines the accounts and audit;

(v) It has the power of impeachment of the President. The House of Representatives frames the charges and the Senate sits as a Court of trial. Two-third in both the Houses is essential to remove the President from the office.

C. Judicial Control over Administration:

Judicial control over administration means the powers of the courts to examine the legality of the officials’ acts and thereby to safeguard the rights of the citizens. It also implies the right of an aggrieved citizen to bring a civil or criminal suit in a court of law against a public servant for wrong done to him in the course of discharge of hiss public duty.

L.D. White explaining the importance of judicial control writes:

The system of formal external control over officials and their acts falls primarily into two main divisions – that exercised by the legislative bodies and that imposed by the courts. The purpose of legislative supervision is principally to control the policy and the expenditure of the executive branch, the end sought by judicial control of administrative acts is to ensure their legality and thus protect citizens against unlawful trespass on their constitutional or other rights”.

Cases of Judicial Intervention:

Judicial intervention is restrictive in nature and sometimes limited in its scope. Firstly, the courts cannot interfere in the administrative activities of their own accord. They can intervene only when they are invited to do so by any person, who feels that his rights have been in­fringed or are likely to be infringed as a result of some action of the public officials. Secondly, the courts cannot interfere in each and every administrative act, as too much of judicial action may make the officers too much conscious and very little of it may make them negligent of the rights of citizens. In the words of L.D. White : “At one extreme, the vigour of judicial control may paraylse effective administration, at the other the result may be an offensive bureaucratic tyranny, exactly where the balance may be best struck is a major problem of judicial adminis­tration relationship.”

No hard and fast principles can be laid down for judicial intervention, but the courts intervene in administrative cases on the following grounds:

i. Lack of Jurisdiction:

Every officer has to act within the limits of the authority given to him and also within a specified geographical area. If he acts beyond his authority or outside the geographical limits of his powers, his acts will be declared by the courts as ultra vires and hence ineffective.

As, for example, in India it is expressly laid down in the Constitution that no government employee shall be dismissed by an authority below in rank the authority which appointed him otherwise the action of dismissal shall be declared ultra vires due to lack of jurisdiction, for instance, in the case of R.P. Kapur, I.C.S., Commissioner, Patiala Division, the Court held that the Governor of Punjab could not suspend Mr. Kapur because he was appointed by the King in Great Britain and after Independence, it was the President of India and not the Governor who could exercise this power—Governor being lower in rank than the appointing authority.

ii. Error of Law:

A public servant may misinterpret the law and may impose upon the citizens duties and obligations which are not required by law. A citizen who has suffered on account of this has the right to approach the court for damages.

iii. Error of Fact-Finding: 

Thirdly, there may be cases in which the official has erred in discovering facts. He may wrongly interpret facts or ignore them and thus may act on wrong presumptions. This may affect a citizen adversely and so there may be ground for bringing a case in a court of law.

iv. Abuse of Authority:

If a public official uses his authority vindictively to harm some person, the courts can intervene and punish him if he is found guilty of using his authority to take a personal revenge.

v. Error of Authority:

Above all, public officials have to act according to a certain procedure as laid down by laws and if they do not follow the prescribed procedure, the courts have a right to question the legality of their action, on appeal from the party affected. For example, law requires that an employee should be served with the notice of the charges before any action of suspending or dismissing him can be taken against him.

Suppose the officer takes action against him without serving a proper notice, then his action shall be declared null and void by the court.

In the words of Mr. N.V. Gadgil:

“Whether the action of administration is desirable or not is not open for judicial review but whether the administrator was competent to take that action and whether in doing so he followed the prescribed procedures are certainly matters in which the court can interfere.”

Judicial Remedies for Suing the Government:

Judicial control can be in the form of suing the State or the Government itself or the public official concerned for his wrongful acts. The position regarding the suability of the Government and public officials differs in the countries following the system of Rule of Law or the Administrative Law (Droit Administrative).

The Rule of Law system prevails in England and her Dominions and other Commonwealth countries including India, U.S.A. and Belgium.

The Administrative system is practiced in France and other countries of continental Europe. The system of Rule of Law implies that everybody, high or low, official or private citizen is subject to the same ordinary law of the land and that the official cannot take shelter behind the State sovereignty in defending himself.

To repeat what Dicey said; “with us (English) every official, from the Prune Minister down to a constable or collector of taxes is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen.”

That means that the State cannot be held liable for the wrong acts of its officials even if they have done an injury to a citizen while working in their official capacity and that the officials themselves are personally liable for their wrongful acts.

The State thus enjoys immunity from liability in torts, i.e., it cannot be sued for damages and a suit can be brought for damages only against the official responsible for doing a wrong or causing an injury.

This remedy is hardly of any use because the damages decreed by the courts cannot usually be recovered due to the impecunious condition of officials. An agitation was carried in England to improve the system. After long agitation the position was improved by the passage of the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947, which makes the Crown i.e., the State liable for torts committed by its servants.

But there are two exceptions, namely:

(i) The prerogatives of the Crown to defend the realm, the administration of armed forces, labours and aliens, and suppres­sion of disorder are outside the field of liability and a certificate from the Government to this effect relieves it of such liability, and

(ii) The state is not bound to produce before the court secret documents by way of evidence.

In U.S.A. subject to a few exceptions, the State is still immune from tortuous liability of its officials. The exceptions are the admiralty and maritime jurisdictions, and the power given to Post Master General to settle claims involving personal injury or property, the damage claimed not exceeding $ 500.

In regard to the states also, the general position is the same, i.e., no state can be sued in tort except with its own consent expressly given, usually by statutory enactment. The federal government cannot be sued in State Courts nor State Governments in federal courts. But in U.S.A. the State is still immune from tortuous liability of its officials.

In India the stability of the State is governed by Article 300 of the Constitution.

The Article provides that the Union of India and the Government of a State may sue or be sued, but the circumstances in which a suit against them would lie are to be laid down by the law of the Parliament and the State Legislatures, and subject to such legislation, the position would continue to be what it would be “if this Constitution had not been enacted.”

The position is that the State is suable for contracts but the position about the torts is not clear. In the Case of Rao vs. Khusal Chand, the Bombay High Court has held that the Government cannot claim any immunity from illegal acts under S. 176 of the Government of India Act, 1935, when it illegally requisitions land under the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance.

Except in case of strictly ‘sovereign’ acts, the Government of India is liable for all unlawful acts of its servants.

About 30 years back, the question of liability of the State Government arose when the Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s Order, allowing compensation of Rs. 15,000 against the State for the tortuous act of one of its employees—driver of a Government jeep who knocked down a person on the footpath, causing him multiple injuries, which resulted in his death.

The State’s main contention was that it was not liable for the tortuous act of its employee. Dismissing the appeal of the State of Rajasthan, the Chief Justice, Mr. B. P. Sinha, of the Supreme Court, in his judgement delivered on February 2, 1962 held that a State would be as much liable for the tortuous acts of its employees, committed during the course of their employment as any other employer.

The immunity of the Crown of the United Kingdom was based on the old feudalistic notions of justice, namely, that the King was incapable of doing a wrong and therefore he could not be sued in his own courts. In India ever since the time of the East India Company the sovereign has been held liable to be used in tort or in contract and the common law immunity never operated in India.

Now that we have by our own Constitution established a Republic, a socialistic State with its varied industries and other activities, employing a large army of servants there is no justification in principle or in public interest that state should not be held liable vicariously for the tortuous acts of its servants.

However, two years later, the Court all but departed from the previous decision. It was an interesting case. Ralia Ram was arrested by three constables on a wrong suspicion of carrying stolen property and taken to a police station in Meerut. Gold weighing 103 tolas and silver weighing more than two maunds were seized from him and kept in police custody.

When Ralia Ram was later released, the silver was returned to him but, oddly, not the gold. He filed a suit for the recovery of the gold valued at Rs. 11,000. The State alleged that the gold was in the custody of Mohammed Amir, head constable, who had misappropriated it and gone away to Pakistan, and contended that it was therefore not liable for the loss.

The trial court held that the police were negligent and that the State was liable to compen­sate Ralia Ram for the loss. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. Ralia Ram went in appeal to the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice held that negligence was no doubt committed by the police officers but even so the State was not liable for this act.

The Court, relying on the distinction made in the Bombay case held that; “In the present case, the act of negligence was committed by the police officers while dealing with the property of Ralia Ram which they had seized in exercise of their statutory powers. Now, the power to arrest a person, to search him and to seize property found with him, are powers conferred on the specified officers by Statute and in the last analysis, they are powers which can be properly characterised as sovereign powers.”

“And so, there is no difficulty in holding that the act which gave rise to the present claim for damages has been committed by the employee of the respondent during the course of employment; but the employment in question being of the category which can claim special char­acteristic of sovereign-power, the claim cannot be sustained and so, we inevitably harp back on what Chief Justice Peacock decided in 1861 and hold that the present claim is not sustainable.”

A distinction was thus made between the sovereign functions and non-sovereign functions of the State. The liability of the state for the tortuous acts of its servants extends only to the non-sovereign functions and not to sovereign functions.

Since the distinction between the two kinds of functions is not always logical or clear, therefore, the court observed:

“Before we part with this appeal, however, we ought to add that it is time that the legislatures in India seriously consider whether they should not pass legislative enactments to regulate and control their claim for immunity in case like this on the same lines as has been done in England by the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. It will be recalled that this doctrine of immunity is based on the com­mon lay principle that the King commits no wrong and that he cannot be guilty of personal negligence or misconduct, and as such cannot be responsible for the negligence or misconduct of servants. Another aspect of this doctrine was that it was an attribute of sovereignty that a State cannot be sued in its own Courts without its consent. This legal position has been sub­stantially altered by the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947”.

The Law Commission examined the whole issue of liability of the State for the wrongs of its servants and laid down three fundamental principles on which legislation should proceed in our country.

The principles were:

(1) “The State should be liable, without proof of negligence, for breach of statutory duty imposed on it or its employees which causes damage.

(2) “The State should be liable if in the discharge of statutory duties imposed upon it or its employees, the employees act negligently or maliciously, whether or not discretion is involved in the exercise of such duty.

(3) The State should be liable if in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it or its employees the power is so exercised as to cause nuisance or trespass or the power is exercised negligently or maliciously causing damage.”

In 1965, the then Union Law Minister, Mr. A.K. Sen, introduced a Bill in the Lok Sabha, the Government (Liability in Tort) Bill. It provides, fairly enough, that the Government shall be liable in respect of any tort:

(a) Committed by an employee of the Government or an agent employed by the Gov­ernment;

(i) While acting in the course of his employment; or

(ii) While acting beyond the course of his employment if the act constituting the tort was done by the employee or agent on behalf of the Government and is ratified by the Government;

(b) Committed by an independent contractor employed by the Government or any of his servants or workmen in doing the act contracted to be done for the Govern­ment.

The Bill not only excludes the armed forces from the application of these clauses, but also the police forces from the purview of those proposed legislations on the ground that “the. case of a police constable is not distinguishable from that of a soldier”. This is, in fact, the main weakness of the proposed law.

Administrative Law System:

On the other hand, as we saw in the countries where the system of Administrative Law prevails, the liability of the State for the wrongful acts of its officials is fully established. There the officials are tried not in the ordinary courts of law but in the administrative courts which award damages from the public funds to the aggrieved individuals.

The State may later deal with its officials at fault as it thinks fit but so far as the citizen is concerned he sues and obtains damages from the State.

The protagonists of this system contend that, firstly, it frees the administrative authorities from the jurisdiction of the law courts and hence secures promptness, fearlessness and effi­ciency in administrative action.

Secondly, it is contended that the Judges, who are only experts in the law and know nothing about the technicalities of administration or executive exigencies, should not be entrusted with the task of settling administrative disputes.

Administrative disputes should be decided from the point of view of public and not from the legal point of view. Hence, the necessity of administrative law which ensures decisions of administrative actions by administrative experts.

Thirdly, the system provides remedies to the citizens against the wrong­ful acts of the officials, whether high or low, at a very low cost and rather with greater ease than is possible under the Rule of Law System. The French Council of State has been working with perfect smoothness, independence and impartiality and people look upon it with respect, pride and confidence.

According to Mr. C. K. Allen, “The remedies of the subject against the State in France are easier, speedier, and infinitely cheaper than they are in England today. It has become a maxim of constitutionalists and a bulwark of French democracy that the Council of State is the greater buffer between the public and the Bureaucracy.”

Prof J.H. Morgan writes, “What Administrative Law does in France, and still more in Germany, is not to exempt public officers from responsibility whereas in this country (i.e., England) they would be liable, but to extend that liability to cases whereas in this country they would be immune”.

Certain Exceptions to the Rule of Law (U.S.A., U.K. and India):

It may be mentioned here that even in countries following the Rule of Law System, there are certain people like the Head of the State who enjoy legal immunity and are not amenable to the ordinary courts of the land.

For example, the British Monarch is completely immune from legal liability in respect of any of his or her acts done in public or private capacity. “The King can do no wrong” is a legally accepted phrase in England.

The American President is also immune from any legal proceedings during the term of his office. He can only be impeached by the Congress and it is only after his removal from office that he can be tried in ordinary courts for crimes committed by him as President.

In India personal immunity from legal liabil­ity is granted to the President of the Union and Governors of the States for any act done in exercise of their powers and duties as laid down in the Constitution.

During their term of office, they are immune from any criminal proceedings even in respect of their personal acts. Civil proceedings in respect of their personal acts are permissible even during their term of office but only after two months’ written notice stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action, name, address, etc., of the party concerned, and the relief claimed.

The Ministers have, however, no such immunity and they are, therefore, liable for crimes and torts and are amenable to the ordinary courts. The judicial officers also enjoy immunity and cannot be sued for any decision taken by them in the discharge of their official duties.

The other officials can be sued both in civil and criminal cases. Civil proceedings can be instituted against an official for anything done in his official capacity after the expiry of two months’ notice.

No such notice is, however, necessary when the official is to be proceeded against for an act done outside the scope of his official duties. When criminal proceedings are to be instituted against an official for the acts done in his official capacity, previous sanction of the President or the Governor as the case may be, is to be obtained.

Extraordinary Judicial Remedies:

In addition to the judicial remedies of suing the government or its officials, citizens have the following extraordinary remedies also against the excesses of public officials:

1. Habeas Corpus:

Habeas Corpus literally means “to produce the body of” The writ of Habeas Corpus is accordingly issued by the courts in the nature of an order calling upon the person who has detained another to produce the latter before it in order to let it know on what grounds he has been confined and to set him free if there is no legal Justification for the confinement.

The purpose of this writ is, thus, to determine whether the person detained or restrained in his liberties. This writ is a powerful safeguard of the liberty of the citizens.

The writ of Habeas Corpus is granted as a matter of right and not at the discretion of the court, the court is obliged to issue it, if there is prima facie case for supposing that the person is unlawfully deprived of his liberty.

It is something very peculiar that our Constitution declaring India to be a Sovereign Democratic Republic and providing a lengthy chapter on Fundamental Rights of the citizens should authorize the Parliament and State Legislatures to pass laws making a provision for the preventive detention of a person in times of peace.

It is indeed a great limitation on the citizens’ right to liberty. But it cannot be helped as there are still some anti-social and subversive elements in our country and to prevent them from becoming a serious danger to the welfare of society or to the security of the state, it is necessary to exercise detention power under the Preventive Detention Act.

It is worth mentioning here that this power cannot be used arbitrarily by the executive.

A person cannot be detained for more than three months unless the cause of his detention is investigated by in Advisory Board consisting of persons of the status of a judge of High Court within that period and the Board has reported there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for such detention. In a democratic country, Preventive Detention Act providing restrictions on the liberties of the people seems most obnoxious.

The earlier it is scrapped, the better it would be. No doubt, subversive in the guise of provincialism, linguist, communalism still constitute a great threat to the safety of our country yet the remedy should be sought for, not in the Preventive Detention Act but in the purification of public life through education and other persuasive methods.

2. Writ of Mandamus:

Mandamus literally means “a mandate” or “a command”. The writ of mandamus is a command issued from a common law court of competent jurisdiction directing any person, corporation or inferior court, requiring him or them to do some Particular specified therein which appertains to this or that office and is in the nature of public duty.

In short it is a writ issued to a public official to do a thing which is part of his official duty but which he has so far failed to do. This writ cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Its issue is entirely a matter for the discretion of the court and it is not granted if the court feels satisfied that there is an alternative remedy which is self-sufficient and convenient.

This writ can, therefore, be issued on the fulfillment of certain conditions.

First, the petitioner must prove that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the respondent.

Second, the right must be a public right and duly sought to be enforced as a public duty.

Third, the petitioner should ordinarily be the same person whose right is being infringed.

Last the petition must be preceded by the demand for performance of the duty by the respondent and a refusal by the latter, the petitioner must prove that he had for the performance of duty relating to his right upon the public official and that the official had refused to perform it.

3. Prohibition:

The writ of Prohibition is a judicial writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court for the purpose of preventing it from usurping jurisdiction with which it is not vested This writ then commands lower court not to do a thing which it is not legally competent to do. This writ can be claimed as a matter of right. Prohibition should be differentiated from Mandamus.

Firstly, a Prohibition writ can be claimed as a matter of right while the Mandamus cannot.

Secondly, Mandamus can be available against any public authority or official, but Prohi­bition can be issued only against judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals. It is not available against purely administrative or legislative authorities or acts.

Thirdly, Prohibition does not require any personal right or interest on the part of the applicant but in the case of Mandamus, he must prove his personal legal right.

Though the writ of Prohibition plays some part in connection with the control of admin­istrative tribunals with quasi-judicial functions, it is of too little significance as a measure of control over administration by the court.

4. Injunction:

Injunction is a writ issued by the Court requiring a person to do or refrain from doing a thing. It is called “mandatory” when it requires the defendant to do a thing and “preventive” when it requires the defendant to refrain from doing it. Mandatory injunction thus would appear to be resembling Mandamus because they both command the respondent to do a thing but actually there is a difference between the two.

Mandamus cannot be issued against private person while Injunction is usually directed to the parties in the dispute whoso­ever they may be. Again the Preventive Injunction resembles Prohibition but the difference between the two is that Prohibition is a writ available against judicial authorities only, while Injunction is a writ against executive officials.

5. Certiorari:

Certiorari literally means to be certified or to be made certain. The writ of Certiorari means the direction of a superior court to an inferior court for transferring the records of proceedings of a case pending with it for the purpose of determining the legality of proceedings and for giving more satisfactory effect to them than could be done in the inferior court concerned.

The writ of Certiorari resembles the writ of Prohibition as both are meant to supervise the work of the judicial authority but Certiorari is something more than the writ of Prohibition.

Prohibition is only preventive and curative. Prohibition prevents an inferior court from proceeding with a trial but Certiorari enables the superior court to send for record of the proceedings and other of the inferior court, to enquire into its legality and to quash the order if found beyond its jurisdiction.

6. Quo-Warranto:

Quo-Warranto literally means ‘what warrant or authority.’ The writ of Quo warranto is issued by the court to enquire into the legality of the claim which a party asserts to an office or franchise and to oust him from its enjoyment, if the claim be not well founded or to have the same declared forfeited.

The conditions necessary for the issue of the writ are that the office under dispute must have been created by the Constitution or by a statute and should be public and not a private one.

Secondly, the tenure of the office must be perma­nent, i.e., it should not be terminable at pleasure.

Thirdly, the persons proceeded against must have been in actual possession and user of the office. The purpose of this writ is thus to try a claim to a public office. The burden of proof to prove his title is on the respondent. The judgment in such proceedings is that of turning out of office if the plaintiff claims and proves his title to the office he is declared installed or otherwise the office is declared vacant.

The Supreme Court in India has been empowered under the new Constitution to issue directions, orders or writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Quo-Warranto and Cer­tiorari for the enforcement of fundamental rights of the Indian citizens, and the High Courts have been empowered within their jurisdiction “to issue to any person or authority directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.”

Thus it would be observed that the powers of the Supreme Court are wider than mere issuing of the traditional writs as it can issue other directions, orders or writs also as may be necessary in a particular case.

Secondly, these writs can be issued even against the Government in our country while in England; these writs are issued only against persons. Thirdly, powers of High Courts are in certain way wider than those of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has right to issue writs only for enforcement of fundamental rights given in Part III of the Constitution while High Courts have this right both for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as tor any other purpose.

Limitations of Judicial Control:

1. In the first place, all administrative actions are not subject to judicial control. There are many kinds of administrative actions which cannot be reviewed by the law courts. Then there is a tendency on the part of the legislature also to exclude by law certain administrative acts from the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

For example, in India the administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 vests final judicial powers in the Custodians and Custodian General of Evacuee Property and the law courts have no jurisdiction to interfere in the decision made under this Act.

2. Second, even in those administrative actions which are within its jurisdiction, the judi­ciary cannot by itself take cognizance of excesses on the part of officials. It can intervene only on the request of somebody who has been affected or is likely to be affected by in official action.

Human nature being what it is, legalism is the last sphere in which it would like to enter We are always reluctant to enter the precincts of judiciary and prefer to continue to put up with minor injustices of administration. That means that a negligible fraction of the cases of administrative excesses would come before the judiciary and that too after a person has already suffered.

3. Third, the judicial process is very slow and cumbersome. The courts follow certain set technical pattern of procedure beyond the comprehension of a layman and then the procedure is so lengthy that it cannot be known as to when the final judgment shall be given.

There have been instances when cases have been pending with the courts for years together. Sometimes the decision of the court comes when the damage has been done beyond repair “Justice delayed is justice denied”.

An aggrieved person cannot wait indefinitely to avail himself of the judicial remedy. The dilatory judicial procedure will not in any way console the sufferer or reconcile his afflicted mind. Tired of the delay, he will lose hope and become a victim of bureaucracy.

4. Fourth, sometimes the remedies offered by the law courts are inadequate and ineffective. In many cases, especially relating to business activities, mere announcement of an administra­tive action or even a reminder concerning a proposed action may cause an injury to the individ­ual against whom not even a suit can be filed in the law court.

5. Fifth, the government may deprive the person of the remedy granted to him by the court by changing the law or rules thereof In a case the High Court’s ordered that the petitioners be promoted to the senior posts of Professors class I and that direct selection for these posts contravenes the provision of the States Reorganization Act in as much as it changes the condi­tions of service of the petitioners to their disadvantages.

The Government did promote the petitioners thereby giving effect to the judgement of the court. But after some time these posts were withdrawn on the ground of financial stringency and the persons were reverted to their substantive posts.

6. Sixth, judicial action is incredibly expensive and cannot therefore be taken advantage of by many people. Filing a suit means paying the court fee, fee of the lawyer engaged and cost of producing witnesses and undergoing all inconveniences which only those who can afford can bear.

This keeps many people away from the court who prefer to suffer. On account of heavy cost and great inconvenience the judicial remedies are of little advantage.

7. Last, the highly technical nature of most of the administrative actions saps the force of judicial review. The judges are only legal experts and they may have little knowledge of the technicalities and complexities of administrative problems. Their legal bent of mind may hinder them in arriving at a right decision.

They have to follow the prescribed procedures and observe some formalities. W.A. Robson writes, “The liability of the individual official for wrong doing committed in the course of his duty is essentially a relic from past centuries when government was in the hands of a few prominent, independent and substantial persons, so called Public Officers, who were in no way responsible to ministers or elected legislatures or councils. Such a doctrine is utterly unsuited to the Twentieth Century State, in which the Public Officer has been superseded by armies of anonymous and obscure civil servants acting directly under the orders of their superiors, who are ultimately responsible to an elected body. The exclusive liability of the individual officer is a doctrine typical of a highly individual Common Law. It is of decreasing value today, and is small recompense for an irresponsible state.”

Besides, the judges have their own whims and prejudices. The cases are decided not on merit but according to these whims and legalistic aptitudes. That is why the modern trend is towards the establish­ment of Administrative Tribunals which consist of persons expert in technical matters.

D. Community’s Control over Indian Administration:

Every popular government is ultimately responsible to the people. “Public administration is in fact, a creation of public opinion, unlikely to transcend its creator in depth of vision and insight except on marginal matters”. Though the people generally do not bother about the Governmental machinery as they are busy in their daily pursuits with little time to think of the governmental machinery, yet the fact remains that it is they who set the whole mechanism of democratic government in motion.

They elect the head of the State and the members of legislature directly or indirectly. In some countries, they even elect the officials. Public administration is meant to serve the people and it s they who suffer at the hands of irresponsible administration. Therefore, a democratic administration must be responsible to the people.

The formal methods of community’s control over administration over public administration are as follows:

1. Election:

The head of the State is usually elected by the people directly and indi­rectly. The Prime Minister in a parliamentary system is the leader of the party returned in majority by the people. The Ministers are the members of the legislature and are elected by the people.

The top administrative officials are responsible to these elected representatives of the people. In other words, these officials become indirectly responsible to the people and come under their control.

In some countries, like Switzerland and some American States there is the system of electing the administrative officials as well. This system ensures direct popular control over administration but it introduces political considerations into administration and encourages favouritism and patronage. It also may lead to inefficiency and corruption.

Moreover, the people are generally ignorant and hence incapable of assessing the qualification and personal achieve­ments of administrators. It is also impossible in a large country to elect all the officials. Hence from the point of view of administrative efficiency, integrity and impartiality, election of offi­cials by the people is undesirable and can hardly be advocated.

2. Recall:

The system of recall is the logical corollary of the election of officials. Under this system, the electors can call for the dismissal of an official before the expiry of his term. The system of recall makes the official continuously subject to popular whims and understanding, and thus neglectful of the correct practices of his profession.

However the system of recall is very rarely resorted to. In Prof. Charlesworth’s opinion, “The recall does not reduce the influence of bosses, corporations, or other special interests, it is just as useful and as available to bad elements as to good. So far as can be determined, it has no warning effect upon an official who is about to make a mistake or to prepare a crime.”

3. Pressure Groups:

“Pressure Group is an American term for a section of the public organised and active in the pursuits of some special interests which its members join to pro­mote.” Usually a pressure group is a vested group. It is a group of industrialists and traders with organised commercial interests.

These pressure groups bring pressure both upon the legis­lature through ‘lobbying’ and upon the administration through liaison officers. It is difficult to exactly assess the extent of influence exerted by pressure groups upon administration, as no factual study has so far been made.

However, in the United States they are quite active. Miss Belle Zeller opined that “the process of government has become a group process in which organised minorities have become so closely identified with the formal governmental structure itself as to constitute a real center of political power”.

According to F.P. Herring, “The future of many civil servants, particularly the ablest and most enterprising, is not in the federal service but in the private employment of the groups in which their official duties bring them into contact.”

Herbert B. Bans refers to main legitimate contacts of private interests with the administra­tion as follows:

(i) To put across its own point of view to the policy formulating authorities, the legisla­ture and the administrative agencies.

(ii) To keep themselves apprised of the development of government lest it violates new regulations, provisions, requirements, taxes.

(iii) To keep them­selves vigilant against a bureaucratic tendency for more regulations resulting in more control and leading to government operation and ownership.

(iv) To attempt to use the government as an ally in its competition with another industry.

(v) To keep abreast of the changes in the government and comply with even multiplying requirements that the government tends to make of the government.

(vi) To see that bureaucrats and politicians do not make a whipping boy of a business organisation or business in general.

The activities of pressure groups are sometimes useful to the administration. They may convey to the administration the reaction of the vested ‘interests’ to administrative decisions in time and may thus enable it to adjust its policy and activities so that there may be no opposi­tion from those particular interests.

But sometimes these groups employ illegitimate means to secure an official favour. That leads to corruption and favoritism and destroys the efficiency of administration.

The above methods of public control over administration are very general. It is doubtful whether direct controls upon the public administration from outside the executive are desirable. The official cannot take directives from the people nor can he act in accordance with their desires though he may be ultimately responsible to them.

The official in fact should be free from outside interference. The public control should operate on him only through the political executive. No official can serve two masters and so he can owe responsibility only to the executive authorities.

4. Advisory Committees:

A direct link between members of administration and the public has during the recent years appeared in the advisory field. The advisory committees, councils or boards are appointed at different levels of administration from the top to the lower levels. These councils or committees consist of important citizens and of representatives of the special inter­ests.

The government departments providing social services have a special need of such coun­cils.

Stressing the need of these bodies in administration, the Haldane Committee observed, “So long as advisory bodies are not permitted to impair the full responsibility of Ministers to Parlia­ment we think that the more they are regarded an integral part of the normal organisation of a Department, the more will Ministers be enabled to command the confidence of Parliament and the public in their administration of the services which seem likely in the increasing degree to affect the lives of large sections of the community.”

According to Laski, “Of the value of advisory bodies, there is now no room for doubt.”

Sir Arthur Salter has said, “The proper use of advisory bodies is the right answer of representative democracy to the challenge of corporate states as they are an invaluable instru­ment for breaking administrative measures on to the back of the public.”

Though the function of these bodies is merely advisory, but they render a highly positive service to Public Admin­istration.

They function as a liaison agency between the public and the officials. They interpret the feelings and interests of the people to officials and the aims and purposes of the official activities to the public. They also help in securing the cooperation of the common citizens in the formulation and administration of policy.

According to Warner, “There is a clear field for the advisory bodies and the administration to struggle towards that view of the real problem at issue between them which will provide a balanced, integrated adjustment enabling the adminis­tration to move forward with the confidence and success to truly progressive solutions.”

Thus it can be safely concluded that these advisory committees have a prominent place in public administration. They have assumed Governments’ public relations work and assigned administration as such a truly democratic character.

5. Vigorous Public Opinion:

The most effective means of community control over ad­ministration is a vigorous and informed public opinion. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. If the people are politically sluggish and indifferent to what goes on in the administration, they will soon lose their interest and administration will become despotic.

The community has to become conscious of its rights and obligations before it can exercise any influence over ad­ministration. There should be enlightened public opinion. Decentralization of administration may provide the local community with a better opportunity of intimately understanding and influencing the conduct of public business by the official.

In the end, it may be emphasized that an institutional structure, however elaborate and well contrived, cannot by itself be effective to tone up the administration unless the administra­tion itself is permeated by high ideals and carried forward with a sense of dynamic purpose.

Internal Controls:

Internal controls are those controls which operate from within the administrative machinery. They are fitted into the administrative machine and work automatically as the machinery moves. The internal controls range from top to bottom. They exist in every section, branch and department. The administrative machine, as we know, is designed hierarchical, in which one controls the work of the other.

There is always a fear of reprimand, of loss of superiors’ favour, of the loss of increment, and of demotion and dismissal. While the public administration punishes the nagging and inefficient employees, it provides incentives to the loyal and efficient officials. Since the administrative machine has today become a complex structure, it is necessary to supplement the external controls by internal controls in order to make the machine work efficiently.

The internal controls may be studied under four heads:

1. Finance and Statistics:

Budgetary system is a means of control over administration by the executive and legislature. But budgetary system is also a means of internal control. The budget not only apportions available resources between the various branches but is also a means of guiding the officials.

The officials have to keep within the confines of budgetary allocation and follow the financial procedure and rules strictly. If they exceed the budgetary allocation or fail to confine to financial rules, they will be held responsible for it. The Ministry of Finance and the Comptroller and Auditor-General are the two main agencies which exercise control in this behalf.

Numerous forms, proformas, returns, statements have been pre­scribed which the departments make use of while incurring any expenditure. The accounts are to be maintained in a prescribed manner. Vouchers are to be certified according to rules.

Pay­ment is to be made in accordance with the prescribed procedure. There are detailed rules for guiding the officials in money matters. These rules serve as a check upon the administration and reduce the possibility of misappropriation or extravagant expenditure.

Besides accountancy checks there are audit checks to control administration. The audit of the accounts is carried by the Audit Department. The auditors audit the accounts maintained by the department and bring to notice any irregularity or extravagance of expenditure. The official concerned is asked to reply to audit objections.

The fear of audit objections keeps the official conform to the financial rules and procedures. The audit report is laid before the Parliament which is referred to the Public Accounts Committee for review and examination. Thus the accountancy and audit arrangements control the administration from within.

Statistics or quantitative measurements are of great value in the exercise of internal con­trols within the departments. Certain operational standards may be laid down to determine the optimum quantity of work from each employee of a particular category. These standards may be in the form of work units or cost units.

The officials may be asked to produce regular statistics of their activities to indicate their work outputs. A comparison may be made between the work outputs of different branches undertaking similar processes. It may, however, be noted, that statistics are useful in public administration to a very limited extent only.

Only certain phases of administration can lend themselves to quantitative measurement. Public administra­tion is not concerned with production of physical goods.

Its products are services of various kinds like peace and order, education, health, defence, communication, transport, water and electricity which do not lend easily to quantitative measurement. Much of the administrative work is intellectual rather than manual.

Files of a routine nature may be disposed of in dozens in a single day while a file involving a complex matter may take several days for disposal. It may be admitted that exact measurement of work units is not possible in public administration, but it is wrong to say that there are no standards in public administration to assess the work output of an employee.

Urwick says, “There is much nonsense talked about the difficulty of setting standards. It is not difficult. It is always possible to set up some kinds of mark to aim at. At first it may be rather an arbitrary mark. A very useful start is to ask oneself, if, theoreti­cally, it were possible to do a particular job perfectly without any losses due to normal human accidents, sickness, holidays and so on, what would represent 100% performance. Experience in working such a standard and building up the right deductions to allow for each of the factors which make performance fall short of perfection will shape it into a reasonably accurate check on the actual results. The important point is that the administrator should have a mark and force himself to examine and to explain all the reasons for deviation from that mark.”

2. Personnel Management:

The second type of internal control over administration is through Personnel Management. The administrative machine is hierarchical in structure. The hierarchical structure of administra­tion provides for clear lines of responsibility. Referring about its importance, the Hoover Com­mission wrote; Responsibility and accountability are impossible without authority-the power to direct.

The exercise of authority is impossible without a clear line of command from the top to the bottom and a return line of responsibility and accountability from the bottom to the top. Under the hierarchical system of organisation everyone is bound up in a single chain of com­mand which makes an officer at a lower level responsible to the officer at the higher level.

Another device of control through personnel management is the standardization of estab­lishment norms. The number of personnel required in each department, their grades and salaries, their recruitment and promotion, their retirement and dismissal, their training and transfer and their other conditions of service are laid down by a central agency, the Home Department in India and the Treasury in Britain.

The departments are required to adhere to the establishment norms laid down by the Home Ministry. The Central agency should lay down the general con­ditions and principles of personnel management, the responsibility for detailed management may be left to the separate departments.

For example, the central agency may lay down that a par­ticular class of officers in a department would be recruited through Public Service Commission and provided training before being posted.

The department concerned may be left to the respon­sibility of fixing the qualifications required for the posts and detail out the syllabi and procedure of training. Likewise, the departments can make their own annual leave plans and apply appro­priate tests for promotional selection.

There can be little doubt that a good public personnel management is an effective means of internal control over administration. Much will, however, depend upon the sense of justice with which the system is accepted and worked.

3. Efficiency Survey:

Efficiency survey of the work of administrative units is another effective method of inter­nal control. Inspection has always been of great importance in the control of public business. It is particularly valuable in a widespread organisation. The officers from the headquarters go on inspection to ensure that reasonable levels of efficiency are being achieved by the field estab­lishments.

There may be a body of expert inspectors too with the duty of making periodical visits to outstations and the authority to carry out a detailed examination of current procedures and results. It is a detailed examination of current procedures and results.

It is essential that officials posted to inspection duties should have a wide knowledge and experience of the authority’s work and regulations. They should also be skilled in conducting investigations with the least friction with the local officials. Inspection to be efficient must be tactful; otherwise it may do more harm than good.

Another means of efficiency survey is work measurement. In public admin­istration the use of the methods of work measurement is somewhat restricted. Routine clerical operations can be measured but supervisory and administrative operations cannot. The output in one department may not be accurately compared with the output in the other department be­cause of special local conditions and adjustments.

However, efficiency audit, as it is called, is needed in public administration. Efficiency audit is comparatively new technique of control. By it is meant the application of standards of performance to administrative activity in order to judge its effectiveness in terms of economy and efficiency.

The efficiency auditor concerns himself with such questions as whether each employee has full day’s work or more or less, whether the organisation is overstaffed or understaffed, whether the work flow and procedures are economical and expeditious.

While budgetary controls go a long way, it is desirable that efficiency surveys should be carried for proper control over administration. A continuous and systematic system of efficiency surveys is called for. It is hoped that the O & M system will find out solutions to the problems presented by efficiency audit.

4. Professional Standards:

It is vital that public officials should cultivate high standards of conduct. Every profession has its professional code or ethics to which the members following the profession adhere. The Government service is also a profession and naturally, therefore, for public servants also there is a professional code of ethics. They should be non-corruptible, loyal, humble, non-partisan, honest, efficient and of integrity.

The British civil service is known for its administrative ethics. In India there is a voluminous code of conduct for civil servants but they are mostly observed in breach. Hence what is needed is a self-cultivated code of conduct.

There are far more moral lapses on the part of our civil servants. Corruption in civil service is widely prevalent in this country. If the civil service cultivates professional code of ethics, the problem of control over administration would be solved to a large extent.

According to Prof Dimock, “The professional standards, ethics, philosophy, attitudes and ideology of the public service are the surest means of securing a satisfying rapport. Group consciousness and responsibility, although they may lead to exclusiveness are, paradoxically enough, the very forces which can correct the inherent defects of bureaucracy.”

Professional ethics provides “rules of the game” which do more to control public officials than any external or internal control can do.

For the achievement of high professional standards, the responsibility cannot be placed entirely upon the shoulders of the official. The official works in the society and a society in which bribery, corruption, nepotism, favouritism and lawlessness are order of the day cannot have a chaste civil service.

The society must, therefore reform itself. The leaders of the society must come forward and take upon themselves the task of curing the society of its ills.

How­ever, the public official can play an effective role in this direction. He is a part of the society but at the same time he is the philosopher and guide, suggesting and correcting society. He himself should set high moral standards before the people.

James McCanny has said, “Next and probably most significant of all, the permanent officials of government are responsible to them­selves. They must answer to their own consciences, to their own sense of dignity and pride, to the opinions of their fellowmen and to their hopes of esteem for the record they leave behind them, above all to their devotion, to their own honest effort to define the total welfare and to serve it.”

Upload and Share Your Article: