CHAPTER - I I I

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SECRETARIAT

AND DIRECTORATE I N POLICY MAKING,
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION AND
FINANCIAL DELEGATIONS

3.0 Introduction
Since India achieved independence, tlie Government of India

as well as the State Governments have been quite alive to the need for

efficient administration. Consequently the Governments have appointed

Commissions, Committees and Experts from time to time to examine

the structure of the administration and to suggest measures to meet

the present day needs of developing economy of the country. Thus

while seeing the relationship between the Secretariat and the

Directorate we have to look for such relationship which improves

efficiency and lead to better service delivery for the citizens or we have

to engineer the relationship to make them functional, efficient,

productive, cost-effective and service-oriented (Fifth Central Pay

Commission, 1997, p, 86).

P.R. Dubhashi (1986, p, 51-52) in his book Administrative

Reforms in Retrospect pondered over this subject and discussed,

"Reforms in Administrative Organisation should be in the direction of

making administrative organisation more functional. We have two

main types of administrative organisations, namely the Secretariat and

the Directorate. What kind of reforms is needed in these organisations?

71
The answer to this question would depend upon whether these

organisations are so designed as to have maximum capability for

discharging the functions entrusted to them or not. The main function

in the Secretariat organisation is that of planning, policy-making,

programme formulation and monitoring the implementation of the

programmes and policies. Through these functions the Secretariat is

expected to give a sense of direction and purpose as well as a powerful

support to the Directorate. To what extent does the Secretariat, as

presently designed, fulfil this role? It is often complained that the

Secretariat is slow and cumbersome and is characterised by excessive

paper work. Often those In field complaint that, their proposal is unduly

delayed and therefore, far from getting the necessary support from the

Secretariat, their efforts are often frustrated by the delay in decision

making in the Secretariat. Very often proposal from the field

organisation is returned with queries, raised not once but in

instalments." In a lecture delivered at the Indian Institute of Public

Administration, Dr. P.C. Alexander the then Principal Secretary to PM

referred to unproductive file work in the Secretariat. In his assessment

much of the noting in the Secretariat file is of repetitive nature. Every

receipt in the Secretariat goes down to the level of Assistant and noting

starts from the lowest level as the file moves ponderously to the

highest level. The file moves from Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary,

Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary, Secretary and lastly to the

Minister delaying the matter substantially."

72
 Thus it is important to look into the internal working of the

Secretariat and the Directorate as well as their inter-relationship to

improve the efficiency of Government as a whole to deliver better.

These aspects are discussed in the following headings.

1. Improving the internal working of the Secretariat

2. Improving the internal working of the Directorates.

3. Improving the relationship of the Secretariat and the

Directorates. It is further discussed under the following sub-

headings:

(a) Institutional relationship between both the organs.

(b) Policy-making relationship.

(c) Relationship in Personnel Administration.

(d) Level of financial delegations required.

(e) Supervision and Control.

3.1 I m p r o v i n g t h e I n t e r n a l W o r k i n g of t h e Secretariat

3.1.1 The word Secretariat means the Secretary's Office. The

Secretary being the Principal Adviser to the Minister needs to be

equipped with an office to assist him in the performance of his

functions. The Secretariat system in India owes its existence to two

strands of administrative philosophy (Indian Administration, 1996, p,

154):

(a) The task of policy making must be separate from that of its

execution.

73
 (b) The transitory cadre of officers operating on tenure system

controlling a permanent office is a prerequisite to the vitality

of the administrative system as a whole.

3.1.2 Various scholars have looked into the working of State

Government Secretariat and steps required to improve the same. As

per Mohan Mukerji (1982, p,290-292): -

"In Rajasthan, In November, 1954 a Committee was set up

under the chairmanship of S.D. Ujjwal, the then Secretary to the

Government, Home Department, to examine the mechanics of the

Secretariat work, delegation of powers and method of disposal and to

make recommendations to the Government to effect concrete

improvements in the Secretariat work. As a result of the

recommendations of this Committee, the functions of appointment

department were decentralised to a considerable extent, the levels of

processing and consideration of cases were reduced to some extent,

and more powers were delegated to the Heads of the Departments and

the Administrative Departments.

In 1960 Cell System was introduced in Rajasthan to improve

the working of the Secretariat. It would be worthwhile here to explain

in brief the working of the Cell system. Under this system an

Administrative Department is divided into a number of cells according

to the requirements of the department. A Cell is under the charge of a

Cell Officer who can be either an Assistant Secretary or a Deputy

Secretary. The Cell normally consists of a Diarist-cum-Dispatcher, a

74
Reference Assistant, a Stenographer and the Cell Officer. All dak

received in the Cell is immediately registered by the Diarist and passed

on then and there to the Reference Assistance who connects papers

with the relevant files and put up all such files before the Cell Officer

without any noting or draft reply. The Cell Officer dictates and issue

necessary orders if he himself is empowered to dispose of the case. If

he is not competent to dispose of the case, he writes or dictates a note

and also the draft order/letter and submits the file to the Secretary for

orders. The government of India introduced a similar system in the

Ministry of Works and Housing as an experimental measure as far back

as 1955. They called it as Officer-oriented system. The Ministry of

External Affairs, Government of India where a similar measure was

introduced a few year later, named it as Attache system. The

Administrative Reforms Commission appointed by the Government of

Punjab called it Action-oriented system. The Desk Officer system

recommended by Administrative Reforms commission of Government of

India headed by Morarji Desai was practically the same as the Cell

system introduced by the Rajasthan government.

The introduction of the Cell system brought about a

psychological change in the attitude of those entrusted with the

working of the Cells. The old habit of putting off decisions as long as

possible and raising queries necessary or not, became negligible if not

almost to an end as a positive attitude to finalise matters had to be

adopted. The basic difference in the new system was examination of

75
all papers not at the level of the ministerial hierarchy but by the Cell

Officer himself who could not avoid coming to a conclusion.

The Rajasthan Secretariat Reorganisation Committee headed

by Mohan Mukherji went into details into the working of the cell system

in 1969-70 and came to the following conclusions.

i) The Cell has the disadvantage of having no benefit of personal

memory. Newly posted Cell Officers find it difficult to deal

with old cases without the help of office notes,

ii) The work is frequently interrupted and arrears accumulate in

the Cells in the absence of Cell Officer or the Stenographer or

even the Reference Assistant, on account of tours, meeting or

leave,

ill) With the reduction or elimination of office notes consistency

and continuity in the work suffer and respect for precedents is

gone. This results in contrary and inconsistent decisions.

iv)The Cell system is eminently suited to those Secretariat

Departments where most of the work handled is of service

variety i.e. decision is required on matters where initial

examination had already been done in administrative

departments. The cell system could continue in Finance

(Expenditure), Planning and Legal Affairs departments.

It is true that in the cell system the work is interrupted

frequently whenever a Member of the cell is absent. This deficiency

can however, be avoided by appointing a Link Officer in respect of a

76
Cell within the same department. It cannot be denied that there is less

concern for precedents in the Cell system. This is natural as the papers

come up for examination straightway to the officer concerned and not

with the noting of an Assistant who is supposed to keep record of such

precedents in the conventional Section system. As we are aware the

search for precedents may take months in certain cases, which

sacrifices the feeling of urgency. No tears, therefore, need to be shed if

departure is sometime made from the precedent for the sake of

achievement of new values in administration.

The Rajasthan Secretariat Reorganisation Committee

concluded that the Cell system could not be accepted as a pattern of

universal application in the State Secretariat and that although there

were ingredients of speed and efficiency in the Cell system, it lacked

consistency and continuity.

Thus, in Rajasthan to improve the efficiency the stress was

given on introducing officer oriented working through cell system.

However, Cell System lack universal application and only few States

have adopted this that too in departments like Legal Affairs and

Planning where specialised knowledge is required. In Rajasthan, good

efforts have been made to simplify the procedures and to delegate

more powers to Heads of Departments.

3.1.3 The West Bengal Committee on Administrative Reforms 1982

(Dubhashi, 1986 p, 27) recommended restructuring the government

departments on the principle of homogeneity of functions. It also

77
suggested a system of pre-budget scrutiny of departmental proposals

for expenditure so that delays due to post budget scrutiny could be

avoided. Combining the features of Desk Officer system and the system

of Level jumping it recommended that the institution of Dealing or

Reference Clerk should be done away with. There should be a time

limit on disposal of papers - three working days for ordinary references

and 3 weeks where policy issues are involved.

Thus it made the significant recommendation of allocation of

work between various departments on the principle of homogeneity of

functions

3.1.4 The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC, 1966-70)

provided the most significant opportunity for having a total enquiry into

the Indian system of public administration embracing within its sweep

even the State Administration. Regarding State Administration there

were two study teams one on State Level Administration and other on

the District Administration (Maheshwari, Shriram, 1984, p-75-76). This

Commission made the following recommendations to improve the

working of the Secretariat:

"There should be only two levels of examination in the

Secretariat. There have also been proposals from time to time for level

jumping, the Desk Officer system was also intended to eliminate noting

at the clerical level. Inspite of all these suggestions little dent has been

made so far on the method of Secretariat functioning. Perhaps what is

wrong is with the very structure of the Secretariat organisation itself

78
and the manner in which it has been constituted. The Secretariat

system is essentially clerical in nature. There is little doubt that such a

clerical organisation cannot contribute to the consideration of

substantive issues involved. More often than not, the so-called

examination in the Secretariat is related to petty points of procedures

and rules.

"The nature of Secretariat organisation must undergo a

change. It should be an organisation specialised in policy

making and monitoring and capable of giving leadership to the

field organisations. It should be positive, forward looking and action

oriented. It can be possible only when the Secretariat organisation as

it now exists at the central and State levels are drastically overhauled.

In fact the very name. Secretariat, needs to be changed in favour of

some other name, which brings out prominently the policy and

leadership function. The system based on assistance by clerks should

be done away with and instead we should have policy analysts who

are capable of examining alternative policy measures for achievement

of objectives of government.

"To be result oriented, the work in the Secretariat must be

based on the first principle of management i.e. management by

objectives, i^ajor objectives of various departments should be clearly

enunciated not in terms of some vague objectives but in terms of

specific goals. There should be communication of goals all along the

79
line so that every member of the Secretariat organisation is able to

relate his work to the attainment of the over all objectives."

Thus the Administrative Reforms Commission stressed on only

two levels of examination in the Secretariat and introduction of Desk

Officer system which is similar to Cell system introduced in Rajasthan.

Moreover it stressed on specialisation in policy making by the

Secretariat rather than Indulging in mere clerical work. It also stressed

that the Secretariat should be result-oriented.

3.1.5 Report of the Administrative Reforms Committee,

Government of Kerala (1958, p, 88-90) proposed the following

changes in the internal procedures of the Secretariat:

(a) Noting and offerings of the opinion should be considered by

the officers and office assisting them should put only facts,

procedures and precedents.

(b) The system of jumping of levels, by which all files do not

travel through all, should be tried.

(c) There should be proper regrouping of Secretariat

departments.

3.1.6 S. Ramanathan in his book - Landmark in Karnataka

Administration - (1988, p, 453) wrote that administrative reforms is an

effort to apply new ideas or the combination of ideas to the

administrative system with a conscious view of improving the system

for positive goals of national development. For reducing the delays in

the Secretariat he made the following suggestions (p, 460):

80
 "In the revised Secretariat IManual of office procedures all

dealing hands in the Secretariat are required to dispose of all receipts

and files within five days of their receipt and officers of all levels should

attend the cases promptly. In order to reduce delay, the Manual

provides for level jumping. The Senior Assistants can be authorised to

submit cases directly to Under Secretary, the Section Officer can be

permitted to submit certain type of cases direct to the Deputy

Secretary. Similarly the Deputy Secretary may in certain cases deal

direct with the l*^inister.

"When it is necessary to consult more than one department on

a particular case such consultation is ordinarily required to take place

simultaneously by means of a self-contained unofficial note on

important case where a decision is to be taken urgently. A reasonable

time by which the reply is required can be indicated with a provision

that if no reply is received by the specified time limit, it would be

presumed that the department to which the reference has been made

agreed with the proposal. In order to watch over the progress of work

of each Assistant a weekly arrear statement is required to be prepared

on the last working day of every week."

With a view to reducing the delay in the disposal of business in

the Secretariat the following steps are suggested:

(i) Secretaries to the Government should devote one day every

month to review and discuss long pending files in their

respective departments.

81
 (ii) Where cases are held up for comments or views from other

departments, Secretaries should contact their counterparts in

those departments and arrange personal discussions for the

disposal of settlement of pointed issue.

(ill) In respect of files for which replies / comments are due from

subordinate offices for a long time, similar discussions should

be held.

(iv) In respect of proposals where there is apprehension of

difference of opinion between departments, a meeting can be

organised under the chairmanship of the senior most

Secretary to sort out the differences on the table and come to

a conclusion.

3.1.7 The Administrative Reforms Commission, Madliya

Pradesh (1972, - p80-81) in its report pointed out that methods and

procedures are means to rational decision making to achieve optimum

relationship between costs and benefits and to secure efficiency of

performance. These should be such as would eliminate organisational

eccentricities. Regarding Secretariat it recommended that the Divisional

Heads should hold daily meetings to review the position of disposal of

receipts and disposal of files. Each branch should submit a properly

classified statement of pending receipts and abstract of pending files.

3.1.8 The Punjab Administrative Reforms Commission ( 1 9 6 6 )

went deep into the malice in the working of the Secretariat and

pointed out (Para 6.17, p-106) - Briefly 3 main defects stand out

82
clearly in the present system and method of work, (i) a large portion of

the work being handled in the Secretariat today should not come to it

at all; (11) many of the cases which go up to the Secretary for his orders

or information need not go up to him, (iii) there is too much

unnecessary repetitive and pointless noting on the files. Moreover, the

method of working in the Secretariat has lent itself to pushing of papers

for orders and there is now a new trend of evasion of responsibility.

(Para 6.21, p, 108) What the Secretariat is meant to do and

what it is actually doing today is mainly because the distinction

between administrative work and execution has been allowed to get

blurred. The anxiety of the Ministers to get in the midst of the day-to-

day administration has created a corresponding tendency among the

Secretariat officers from the Administrative Secretary downward to

assume responsibility and to extend direct control over departmental

work, which does not belong properly to the Secretariat.

(Para 6.27, p, 110) The following defects of the Secretariat need to be

remedied.

(1) Too many Secretaries, too much clerical staff mis-joinder of

subjects in departments under various Secretaries,

(ii) Faulty methods of work, too many noting and advising levels,

lack of delegation within the Secretariat,

(iii) Faulty and excessive financial procedures, lack of financial

delegation and too much post-budget scrutiny.

83
 (iv) Lack of observance of tenure for the Secretaries, absence of

inter-changability between the Secretariat and field offices,

(v) Interference in day today adnninistration of field departments.

The Bureaucratic malaise (p, 121)

The entire administration needs to be action oriented. The

present situation is that even very important matters get involved in

red tape, too much noting and too much reference and back-reference.

Adherence to the rules originally conceived as means is

transformed into an end itself.

Diagnosis of the Problem (p, 122)

A sample study of 152 cases in 3 major developmental

departments shows that in 90 per cent cases the dealing Assistant did

the clerical work i.e. putting up old papers and preparing the routine

drafts. Only in 6 per cent of the cases the Assistant made a detailed

examination of the issue involved in light of the existing policy, original

contribution, namely, suggesting some different or new line of approach

was limited to only 3 per cent of handling of cases. The Secretaries

just signed like approved or accepted the suggestions made on files in

78% cases. The detailed examination was limited to 14% and original

contribution was found in 7% of the cases. The Assistant took less

than 3 days in disposing 56% cases, 4 - 9 days in 25% cases and in

7% cases, more than 3 weeks in 7% cases. 78% cases were disposed

of within 3 days by the Secretary. 17% cases were disposed of between

4 -9 days and 2.7% cases took more than three weeks. The Research

84
Group also made detailed study about the time spent by the

Secretaries on various activities in a week and found that 46% of the

time is taken in files, 33% time is in the meetings, 14% time is spent

on discussions and rest 7% time is spent on visitors and attending the

telephone calls.

The study comes out with a general consensus that the

Secretary should devote much more time to general policies, plans and

programmes and on development of organisational and personnel

competence and less to matters of personnel control. All these studies

indicate further that quite a lot of work is pushed on to the Secretary's

level, which either should not have come to the Secretariat at all or

should not have gone upto the Secretary. Pressure of heterogeneous

administrative work on the Administrative Secretaries keep them so

busy that they hardly get time for serious thought which ultimately

results in reflection on policies and programmes of development. It has

become the general trend that hardly a good and far-reaching proposal

comes from the Secretary, which will have impact for times to come.

We are fully convinced on the basis of evidence before us that

a change in the existing staffing pattern in the Secretariat is absolutely

necessary for improving the speed and quality of work, the proper role

of the Secretariat is that of assisting the Ministers in policy making and

policy co-ordination and helping the departments in administrative and

financial matters rather than acting as an obstacle in prompt execution

of projects and schemes.

85
Para 7.12 (p, 129) Basic Elements of the New System

Viewing tiie problem from this perspective, following changes

in the staffing pattern of the Secretariat are an absolute necessity:

(i) Elimination of office noting and reduction of levels of

consideration so as to ensure that a case is not scrutinised by

more than 2 officials before it goes upto the Minister,

(ii) Final disposal of a case by the lowest dealing official unless

there is no previous policy or precedent in the matter,

(ill) Clear and effective delegation of authority from the l*»1inister

downward,

(iv) Maximum possible delegation of administrative and financial

powers to Heads of field departments in the interest of speedy

execution of policies and programmes of the government,

(v) Single file system of correspondence between the Secretary

and the Head of the Department,

(vi) Location of headquarters of the officers of field department

should be in close proximity to -the administrative

departments,

(vii) Appointment of internal financial Adviser with adequate power

for each department. This is recommended because this

practice is in vogue in the Ministry of Government of India and

is found to be very effective.

Para 7.13, (p, 130) - An action oriented system - There is a

necessity of a change over to a staffing pattern on the above lines.

86
which may well be called an Action-oriented system. Under such a

system, it will not be necessary to have the levels of assistance and

superintendence for examination of cases. Each Deputy Secretary may

have two assistants to help him in dealing with such cases requiring

detailed examination. This help would be in the form of adding of

previous papers, putting up relevant references to the rules and

regulations and recording of papers finally disposed of. There should

be no noting by an Assistant. Under the new system it will be

necessary to give each Deputy Secretary more Stenographic help than

what is available now.

Para 7.16 (p, 131) There should not be more than two noting levels

below the decision making level. The Secretariat is an organisation, is

intended, in the main, to assist the Council of Ministers in discharge of

their responsibilities. The Punjab Civil Secretariat has expanded

considerably due to assumption of duties not belonging to it both in

administrative and finance department to examine, criticise and query

even those parts of departmental proposals where they are least

qualified to perform any of these functions.

The suggestions by Punjab Administrative Reforms

Commission are laudable, however in practice only few of the

suggestions were implemented.

3.1.9 The Administrative Reforms Commission, Andhra

Pradesli (1965, p, 18-23) after detailed consideration came to the

87
conclusion that the only way of improving the efficiency and

effectiveness of the Secretariat is: -

(i) to select the top most officials available to the Government for

the posts of Secretaries and by making each Secretary

responsible for not only for policy making but also for the

implementation and overall performance of the Departments in

his portfolio;

(ii) to eschew duplicate noting and scrutiny of the proposals sent

by the heads of Departments at the clerical level in the

Secretariat;

(ill) to associate the Head of Department fully with the thinking of

the Secretariat and to give him appropriate Secretariat status

thereby affording him an opportunity to make his contribution

to the Secretariat thinking in an important manner;

(iv) to make the advice and services of the Secretariat available to

the Head of Department as far as practicable, at the "Deputy"

and the "Assistants" level, thus (1) relieving the Head of

Department from much routine and (2) making it possible

considerably to augment the powers of offices at lower levels;

and

(v) to provide for financial scrutiny within the department itself

upto a certain extent and avoiding the sending up of every

proposal, big or small, to the Finance Department for

approval.

88
 (vi) Secretariat department should consist of two Cells -

> The Secretariat Cell:

The Secretariat Cell of a Department will be much smaller

than the present Secretariat department. It will be necessary for

Government to readjust the number of officers and staff presently

employed in the Secretariat.

> Vigilance Cell and the Public Relations Cell:

The functions of these cells are clear from their titles. We

also recommend that the functions of the Vigilance Commission should

be enlarged so as to enable the Vigilance Commissioner to entertain

petitions from individual Government Servants who are aggrieved by

decisions of their superiors in matters affecting their personal

conditions of service, or by long delays in deciding such matters. We

feel that apart from dealing with cases of corruption etc., the Vigilance

Cell can play a very useful role in this respect. In other words this cell

should not only watch over the integrity and propriety of the behaviour

of the officers employed in the Department but also help in bringing to

the notice of the Secretary cases where delay and injustice occurs in

dealing with individual Government employees, thereby improving the

general tone of the administration as a whole.

Thus Administrative Reforms Commission, Andhra Pradesh

advocated for making Secretary of the Government more responsible

and accountable.

89
3.1.10 In Himachal Pradesh Administrative Reforms Department

made a report on the results of quick inspections of various sections of

the Secretariat (September, 1993). The report mentioned that the

Chief Secretary in his note while remarking on the deteriorating

standards of efficiency in the Secretariat had desired that quick

inspections be done on some representative sections in order to

determine whether the provision of the Office Manual had been followed

and with a view to ascertaining the remedial measures that need to be

taken to improve the standards of efficiency. The following points

emerged from evaluation of quick inspection:

1) The system of inspection is no longer in vogue. Branches are

not being inspected regularly.

2) Average of receipt per dealing hand is less than 4.5 of which a

certain portion is informatory receipt. As such over all there is

no requirement of additional staff.

3) First, Sections by and large do not properly maintain charts of

reports and returns and even where they do, there is no

monitoring to ensure that these are followed up. Secondly,

charts are generally with regard to reports and returns to be

sent out by the Section, rather than with regard to reports to

be received into the Section. Thirdly, the report sent by the

Section generally refers to arrears reports. It is obvious that

in most of the Sections there is no systematic maintenance of

data or monitoring of Directorates.

90
 4) In establishment sections index cards are not being

maintained even tliougii tiiis would greatly facilitate cadre

management.

5) In many sections guard files are not properly maintained as a

result of which it can be assumed that examination of cases is

not adequate.

6) There Is undue dependence on Directorates for Information

and Directorate staff of all levels often spent lots of time in

assisting the processing of cases in the Secretariat mainly

because the Secretariat section do not adequately maintain

data or independently examine cases.

To improve the efficiency of the Secretariat the following

recommendations were made:

(i) The system of inspections should be enforced by setting up

with Administrative Reforms Unit a separate Inspection Cell

from the existing staff to monitor holding of inspection

regularly.

(il) The present inspection system is Inadequate as It looks at the

work of the section overall and not that of an individual. It is,

therefore, recommended that out of the four quarterly

inspections, three should be summary inspections similar to

the one presently carried out. The fourth inspection, which

should be held in the last quarter of each calendar year,

91
 should be a detailed Annual inspection of each individual in the

section. ARU should devise the proforma for this.

(ill) Annual Confidential Reports of Branch officer should include a

column both in the Self-assessment portion and in the

Reporting Officer portion with regard to conduct of inspection.

(iv) In order to improve the working of the Section, the position of

the Section Officer should be restored. Accordingly It Is

recommended that all dealing hands should put up all files

through the Section Officer. The size of the Section should be

between five and seven Assistants only in order to improve the

Section Officer's control. Where the section size is more than

five, one Superintendent may be posted in the section to

supervise the work of three to four dealing hands. But the

Superintendent's work will be to reduce the detailed

supervision by the Section Officer and the Superintendent

should work under the Section Officers' guidance and control.

This will restore the authority and responsibility of the Section

Officer and ensure that he also trains and guides his

subordinate staff, and maintain section efficiency control and

discipline.

(v) The post of Section Officer should be made selection post as

was earlier.

(vi) At present the Section Officer passes the departmental

examination after his promotion as such. Ideally he should

92
 pass his departmental Examination during the probation period

only. But for the moment it is recommended that in addition

to Section Officer, Superintendents and Senior Assistants

should also be made eligible to sit in the departmental

examination, since it is relatively more convenient at a

younger age to appear in the examination.

(vii)It is essential that periodical formal training courses be

conducted in the Secretariat for Clerks, Assistants and

Supervisory Officers both in office procedure and in matter

such as establishment, budget etc.

(vili) All departments have to ensure that Sections maintain an

adequate database at their level and that cases are processed

independently. For this purpose Branch Officer should

immediately examine the charts of Reports and Returns and

prescribe both the Reports and Returns that should be sent by

the Directorate/field and which should be put up by the

Section to the Branch Officers and higher levels.

(ix) Simultaneously computerisation of Sections should

immediately start in collaboration with Administrative Reforms

Unit and National Informatics Centre.

(x) Directorate staff should not normally be permitted to visit

Secretariat without authorisation of the Secretary of the

Department concerned.

93
 (xi) The Branch Officer should monitor the compliance of previous

inspections to ensure that records not properly maintained are

now updated.

(xii)If receipts are any measure it can be said that on the whole

the Secretariat Sections are not under-staffed. It is suggested

that SAD should, before filling in vacant posts, examine the

requirement on the basis of workload and give preference to

those sections where the workload is higher.

3.1.11 A detailed study about the working of Himachal Pradesh

Secretariat was carried out by the Department of Administrative

Reforms in tiie year 1968. The Report was prepared on the

instructions of Administrative Reforms Commission, Government of

India to undertake a study of the organisation, structure and

procedures of the Himachal Pradesh Administration as a whole. In the

Report following recommendations were made to improve the working

of the Secretariat: -

i) The allocation of subjects among different departments should

be generally close to the principle of homogeneity of functions,

ii) The allocation of business rules requires that each department

or group of departments be placed under the charge of a

Secretary. The present distribution does not in every case

follow the two rational principles of grouping namely

homogeneity of functions and manageability of charge.

94
 Mi) A proviso in the allocation of business rules permits of splitting

up of tine responsibility for a department among more than

one Secretary. However, the principle of unity of command

requires to be observed when determining a Secretary's

charge as well as efficient discharge of his functions allotted to

him, in other words doing justice to the department, which is

in his charge.

3.1.12 V.S. I^urti while narrating the working of the Secretariat in

l^aharashtra (Padhi, 1988, p-308) mentioned, "the Secretariat is a staff

organisation to assist the government to discharge its responsibilities.

It exists as an overhead office for policy making and legislative

relations as a memory centre and a clearinghouse preparatory to

certain types of decisions and a general supervisor of executive action.

A notable feature of the Secretariat procedure is that an Assistant

makes an initial scrutiny of proposal and he has little idea of the

practical aspect of the problem in the field. The scrutiny at the

Secretariat, at times, tends to encroach on purely technical aspects of

the proposals. The Secretariat Departments in a few cases handle

work, which is really of the executive type."

Thus l^r. I^urti proposed that role of the Secretariat should be

limited to policy formulation and monitoring of its implementation.

3.1.13 Ramesh K. Arora while writing on Government of Rajasthan

Secretariat (Padhi, p-515) reported that "in 1981 a Seminar on

Administrative Reforms in Rajasthan was organised in Institute of

95
Public Administration where following suggestions to improve the

working of the Secretariat were made:

i) Time schedule for disposal of papers at different levels should

be strictly adhered to for curbing instances of avoidable

delays,

ii) The levels for examination and decision-making should be

restricted to three to ensure quicker disposal,

iii) The additional levels created should have specified areas of

work and not interfere with the existing ones.

iv) There should be a continuous system of training for all level of

functionaries so that new methods of work and procedures are

imbibed; and

v) There should be periodical appraisal of work by the Secretaries

with the assistance of Organisation 8il^ethod pinpointing the

areas where delay occurs so the remedy measures are taken."

3.1.14 In Britain during the last two decades major reforms in the

relationship between the Secretariat and the Directorates have taken

place. The first attempt to address reforms came from Haldane Report

published in 1918 (Machinery of Government Division, 2000): Principles

and Practice). The Haldane Enquiry Commission was set up to ''enquire

into the responsibility of the various departments of the central

executive government and to advise in what manner the exercise and

distribution by the government of its function should be improved."

The Committee went on to ask, "upon what principles are the functions

96
of the department to be determined and allocated?" The report

proposed two methods of allocating functions to Departments and

Ministries: first, the principle of allocating functions according to the

persons or classes to be dealt with and secondly allocation, according to

the services to be performed. The report argued against the first on

the basis that it would be difficult to limit the number of individual

departments that would be needed to cover all the possibilities.

Haldane favoured the second principle and put forward a scheme along

this line.

A later, American attempt (Gulick, 1937) to develop principle

for allocating government activities to individual organisations

suggested four criteria: purposes, processes employed, clientele served

and area served. Gulick's examples are:

Purpose: such as furnishing water, controlling crime or conducting

education.

Process: such as engineering, medicine, and accounting.

Persons dealt with or served: such as immigrants, orphans, farmers

or the poor.

Place where services rendered: such as Hawaii, Boston,

Washington.

Hogwood has taken Gulick's classification and analysed contemporary

government organisation against these principles (Hogwood, 1992).

There is currently no government machinery or department organised

according to the principles of process employed in delivering policy.

97
Client group organisation was used for example, in the creation of

Ministry of Pensions, the territory principles is used in the cases of

Scottish, Wales, and Northern Ireland offices. The allocation of

activities according to broad purpose or functions served is perhaps

more common.

The subject of the allocation of government functions for the

organisational structure was revisited by the Committee on the re-

organisation of the central government under the Heath Government,

1970. The report supported the functional principle for the organisation

of government departments.

3.1.15 Himachal Pradesh Office Manual (1996, p, 188-196) suggests

the following measures to improve efficiency in the Secretariat: -

(i) There should be time limit for disposal of references. In case

of fresh receipt of 'Immediate' nature, reference should be

disposed in two days at the level of dealing hand and 1 day

each at the level of Section Incharge/Branch Officer. In case

of 'urgent' receipt it should be 4 days and for 'ordinary' receipt

6 days at the level of dealing hand and 2 & 3 days respectively

at the level of Section Incharge/ Branch Officer,

(ii) As required under rule 28-A of the Rules of Business, every

Monday, each Secretary should submit to the Mlnister-in-

charge a statement showing important cases disposed of in

the department, during the preceding week.

98
 (iii) A weekly arrear statement should be prepared In every section

on the last working day of every week giving detail of number

of receipts/references received by each dealing hand, disposed

off and pending at the end of the week. This statement

enables the Incharge of the office to keep a watch on the

disposal of cases in his/her Branch.

(iv) A monthly statement of cases pending final disposal o\/er 3

months should be put up to the Minister-in-charge.

(v) A reminder diary should be maintained by a dealing hand as

well as by every officer to make a note of important cases

required to be submitted by or to him on a particular date.

(vi) A guard file should be maintained in each section/branch.

Guard file consists of all decisions on a particular subject

collected at one place. In order to prepare such files,

whenever an important decision is taken, a copy should be

endorsed to the guard file on that subject. Whenever an

important decision is to be taken on a subject, it is advisable

to consult the guard file on the subject to ensure that the

decision is in conformity with earlier decisions and departure if

contemplated, is a conscious one.

(vii) Proper reports and returns should be specified and they should

be reviewed periodically,

(viii) For proper and systematic conceptualisation and

implementation of programmes and tasks, each department

99
 should propose an Annual action plan for all the departmental

programmes/schemes/projects,

(ix) Regular inspection of the Secretariat Sections and Offices

should be organised by the Secretariat Administration

Department to be conducted by the Branch Officers.

3.1.16 In case of Rural Development Department in Himachal

Pradesh, the working of Secretariat is simple as single file system is

prevailing under which Director, Rural Development as ex-officio

Special Secretary (RD) put up the files directly to Secretary without

sending letters which are to be scrutinised at section level. Hence the

desired efficiency in disposal of cases exists in case of Rural

Development Department. However, in the case of Education

Department the Secretariat is working on the traditional system where

each letter sent by the Director of Education is scrutinised at the

Section level and then only it is put up to Joint Secretary/Additional

Secretary and then to Secretary. The various suggestions to improve

the efficiency like level jumping, desk officer system etc. have not been

applied in case of Education Department.

3.1.17 From the above discussion it is clear that Himachal

Government Secretariat needs to be reformed: -

To improve the working within the Secretariat various

suggestions have come forth in the preceding section. The present

researcher findings are for the following changes necessary to improve

the working of the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat:

100
(a) Reducing the paper work in the Secretariat: -

i) Single file system should be introduced between the

Secretariat and Directorate for all the developmental projects

and budget related cases.

ii) Secretariat should restrict its activity to policy making and

monitoring. The execution should be left entirely to the

Directorate under overall broad policy framework and output

expected from the department.

iii) Computerisation and correspondence by way of e-mail through

NIC-network should be a rule rather than an exception.

(b) Improving aualitv of the decision making: -

i) The department of Personnel, Law, Finance, Planning and

(project related) sections of various departments should be

replaced by Desk Officer system,

ii) Management Information System based on desired

performance indicators should be developed,

iii) In every department, file should be dealt only at Desk

Officer/Section Officer level - Branch Officer level and

Secretary level,

iv) Level jumping is not recommended, as it is likely to lead to

chaos. In place of this, we should have minimum levels of file

movement.

101
 v) The routine cases should be disposed off at the level of

so/Branch Officer by providing sufficient delegation under

standing orders.

vi) In cases where advice of more than one department is

required like Law, Personnel or Finance, part file should be

sent simultaneously to these departments to expedite disposal

of cases.

vli) To solve the problem of leave/absence of officials/officers, link

dealing hands and link officer should be designated.

3.2 Improving the Internal Working of the Directorates:

The Directorates are the essential links between the

Secretariat and the Collectorates/Dlstrict Offices. Directorates are the

main organs to execute the policies and the programmes of the State

Government. Their working style decides the total efficiency of the

government. The Bengal Committee on Administrative Reforms (1945,

p, 53) felt that:

"The most Important among all the attributes of the Directorate is the

sympathy with the people. It is the behaviour of the field functionary

that decides the image of administration among the people. In a

democratic system people have right to feel that administration exists

for them and would look Into the problems and grievances of the

people."

3.2.1 As per report of the Administrative Reform Committee,

Government of Kerala (1958, p, 77-80) the Heads of departments are

102
technical Advisers to tine Government and function as tiie agencies for

the implementation of the policies of the government. They are

responsible for the proper utilisation and accounting of the funds placed

at their disposal and for the day today working of the departmental

Incharge. The working of Head of Department can improve by taking

the following steps: -

i) Sufficient delegation of powers i.e. adequate financial and

administrative powers.

11) Proper organisation of the departments linked with the

objectives,

ill) Delegation of authority should be accompanied by proper

provision for review and control,

iv) There should be effective Intra and Inter departmental co-

ordination.

3.2.2 The Administrative Reforms Commission, Andhra Pradesh,

(1965, p, 38-41) brood over this subject and suggested:

"In our view the Heads of Departments should be conferred

with the maximum amount of delegated authority. Some of the HODs

have stated that they are over worked and may be given deputies to

relieve them of routine administrative work. While heads of non-

technical Departments have suggested that these deputies should be

officers having administrative experience. Heads of Technical

Departments want their deputies to be technically qualified persons.

We are of the opinion that there is no need to give further Deputies. In

103
place of this HOD should be personally relieved of routine matters by

delegating much high power to officers at lower levels in his

Department.

3.2.3 Ramesh K. Arora (Padhi, 1988, p, 511-13) had advocated "for

the efficient conduct of business at the governmental level there has

been an accepted tradition of separating question of policy from the

actual details of the administration. Thus every Secretariat Department

dealing with functions requiring implementation at a decentralised level

has one or more directorates, which are responsible for the

implementation of policies, laid down by the government. The

Secretariat is concerned mainly with the broader aspects of

administration. The responsibility for the execution of policies devolves

on the Heads of Departments and their subordinate field staff who

include technical expert. In order to facilitate policy execution, specific

powers have been conferred on Heads of Departments and on the

officers under them, through delegation under executive orders.

"Over the years the powers of the Secretariat vis-a-vis those

of the Directorates have not remained constant. Periodical reviews

have been made of the powers of the Heads of Departments and over

the years, additional powers have been delegated to them. Perhaps,

the State of Rajasthan is the most progressive of all States in India in

delegating administrative and financial powers to the Directorates. No

wonder there does not seem to be noticeable resentment among the

Heads of Departments against the Secretariat attitude and so far there

104
has not been any voice raised in favour of merging of Secretariat and

Directorates and the present pattern of Secretariat- Directorate

relationship does not seem to be under any serious threat. An

important feature of the departmental working in Rajasthan is the grant

of ex-officio Secretariat status to Head of Departments."

3.2.4 The department of Administrative Reforms in Himachal

Pradesh in its study of certain aspects of H.P. Administration (1968)

had suggested that to improve the working of the Directorates, the

Executive Head of the Department should concern himself mainly with

work relating to planning and technical supervision of the field. He may

also have to attend to important financial and personnel cases to

enable him to perform these essential tasks. He should have enough

time to think, plan and organise the work of his department. Major

Heads of Departments may even need the assistance of qualified and

experienced staff, officers for handling working needing special

attention like planning, personnel administration and financial

management. Medium and Minor Heads of Departments need not be

given such assistance in the same measure. Within his own

headquarter office, the Head of Department should encourage the

officers below him to dispose of relatively unimportant cases

themselves on his behalf. What types of cases should be seen by the

Head of Department himself and what cases should be disposed of by

his headquarters officers, is essentially a matter of judgement and can

well be left well to the HOD.

105
3.2.5 Present Position of Rural Development Department and
Education Department in Himachal Pradesh

The Director/Joint Director in Directorate of Rural Development

has ex-officio Secretariat status. That helps them to move files directly

to government leading to quicker decisions. As far as internal working

of Directorate is concerned, it has various administrative branches,

where its activities are performed. The main branches are: -

RD-I Establishment of all gazetted officers.

Superintendents.

RD-II Establishment work of J.E., LSEO.

RD-III Establishment of GPVA

Budget & Cash Budget & audit work.

Statistical Branch Collection and compilation of data.

RD Diary & Despatch
Branch

From the list of above branches, it is clear that the major

stress in Directorate is on the establishment work. The main work of

directorate i.e. implementation of various rural development schemes is

looked after by Budget branch for sanction of money and by Statistical

branch for collection and compilation of data on various schemes. The

Budget branch is only concerned with sanctions and release of money

to DRDA and Blocks for execution. There is no proper mechanism at

the level of the Secretariat to properly monitor the execution of various

schemes and programmes at the field level. Thus there is a need to

106
introduce performance based monitoring tiirougii introduction of

l^anagement Information System in the Directorate.

On the other hand, in the case of Directorate of Education

every proposal requiring approval of the government is referred to the

government in shape of a letter. Then that matter is examined in the

Section level in the Secretariat and then routed to Joint

Secretary/Secretary and then to the Education Minister. This channel

considerably delays the finalisation of cases. As far as internal working

of the Directorate is concerned it has following branches:

i) Physical Education branch Cases of PETO

ii) Scholarship Scholarships

iii) Education-H Reservation and roster

IV) Education-H V Numerical data for schools

V) Development Opening of schools and budget

vi) Planning Preparation of plan and all plan

schemes
vii) Pension & Building Branch Pension cases & Building budget

viii) "^Plus Two Establish of "^Plus Two

ix) Vocational Vocational Guidance and counselling

x) Establishment I I TGT & Headmasters

xi) College Branch All matters of colleges

xii) Establishment I Clerical Cadre establishment

xiii) Cash Section Bills

xiv) Budget & Accounts Budget

(Source: Department of Education)

107
 Thus Directorate of Education is liuge with fourteen branches.

However, the major worl< with it is the transfer and placement of

teachers in various educational institutions. Director and various

officers posted in the Directorate find very little time to monitor and

guide the performance of District Education Officers and schools. The

financial delegation is also very less to the field level, which leads to lot

of unnecessary correspondence between the DEOs and the Directorate.

The working of Directorate needs to be improved by making

substantial financial and administrative delegation to the field level.

Moreover, District level cadres should be made for maximum categories

so transfer and posting and other related establishment work is

transferred to the district level officers. The Directorates should be

computerised and proper proformae based on output should be devised

to monitor the implementation of the government policies and

programmes.

3.3 Improving the Relationship of the Secretariat and the

Directorates: -

3.3(a) Improving Institutional Relationship Between both the

Organs:

Various Administrative Reforms Commissions/Committees

constituted by Government of India and State Government and the

scholars have dwell on this aspect. The Bengal Committee on

Administrative Reforms, 1945, (p, 51-53) proposed - "The dichotomy

between Department and Directorate should be removed wherever

possible by merger between the two. The Technical Head of

108
Department should be formally designated as Secretary to the

Department as in the case of Department of Health, public works,

Forest. Similarly overlapping of activities between the Directorate and

the Corporations should be removed." Thus it stressed for making the

technical Head as ex-officio Secretary.

The Gorewala Committee constituted in 1951 (Dubhashi,

P.R., 1986, p 20) dealt with at length on the proper relationship

between the Minister and the Secretary. He thought that the

responsibility of the Minister was to make government popular while

that of the administrator was to make it efficient. The test of a good

government is a successful combination of these qualities. He also

emphasised the need of a proper relationship between the Secretariat

and Head of Department. The Ministry must be responsible for the

formulation of policy and the department in its implementation. The

Ministry should not deprive the Head of the Department of his initiative.

The Head of Department should not be required to spend a great deal

of time in submitting the reports and explaining individual cases. An

attempt by the Secretariat to do the work of Head of Department would

lead to inefficiency and delay.

Thus he stressed on proper relationship between Secretary

and Minister and also the proper relationship between Secretary and

Head of Department for improving the overall efficiency in the

government.

109
 Shukia J.D. in his Book on State and District Administration in

India (1976, p, 370-374) commented, "Tlie present system having a

general administrator as Secretary to the Government and an expert as

the head of the department enables government to have the benefit of

expert view and the general administrative view on a particular issue

and also leaves the expert comparatively more time to execute policy

and those works which he is by training and experience best fitted. If

each Departmental Head were the sole Adviser of the Minister there

may be no correlation in the activities of various departments and the

government might miss tiie picture of administration as a wliole

in talcing decision. It has been well said of the danger of specialised

mind that it takes the implications of its specialised knowledge to cover

a larger field than the facts warrant. Whereas the general

administrator continually examines the postulate and verifies them

from social experience. The specialists provides the intensity of gaze

and narrows the outlook and it has therefore, been said that an expert

is a good assistant but a bad master. Relative significance of the

results of the policy of public life may differ from the significance from

which may be apparent to a scientist so the position that while all

experts ability and effort is pressed into Government service,

government itself remains a layman's concern and takes a broad and

general administrative view. The Bombay Administrative Enquiry

Committee pointed out "almost all heads of department have stated

before us that in their view it is expedient that they should be made

110
Secretaries or Joint Secretaries to tlie Government for tfieir respective

departments. Tliis we consider to be most desirable and in no way

inconsistent witli independent scrutiny and tendering of advice by

Secretaries to (Ministers. The demand by heads of department for

putting Inim in Secretariat arises from a wish to eliminate one stage

in tlie channel of official correspondence and to prevent tlie delay,

which must inevitably occur during examination of proposals in the

Secretariat. However, experience has shown that to make the Head of

Department Secretary without integrating his office with the Secretariat

leads only to the waste of time and effort. The experiment was tried in

1939 when the Director of Public Instructions was made Joint Secretary

to Government and spent a certain number of days of each week in

Bombay. But he continued to correspond with himself as Director of

Public Instructions at Pune and files were moved to and fro as before.

It some time happened that the Director of Public Instructions was

obliged at the instance of his office to rebut the view, which he himself

had eariier expressed in the light of noting in the Secretariat. While

there was no improvement in the disposal of the work it created the

absurdity of the same officer expressing divergent opinion in different

capacities."

A serious objection to the appointment of Head of Department

as Secretary to the Government is that this would involve the

government's depending on a professional or technical man for final

advice in the shaping of policy. A specialist by reason of his

111
preoccupation with a single problenn or activity is lil<ely to press for the

adoption of his own technical schemes regardless of their

administrative repercussions or financial Implications. An apt

description of the limitation of an expert is contained in an article by

Prof. Harold Lasky ''expertise it may be argued, sacrifices the insight of

common sense to intensity of experience. It breeds an inability to

accept new ideas from the very depth of its preoccupations with its own

conclusions. The specialist is likely to develop a limited outlook and

miss the wood for the trees." To quote Ramsay Muir "when a body of

able man spend the best part of their working lives in the service of

single department they are very apt to loose the sense of proportion

and to regard their own work not as a part of single grid labour of

national service but as an end in itself. They are likely to be led away

by a feeling of departmental loyalty, which makes them either blind or

tolerant to the defects of the department. Another important

objection to the system of appointing Heads of Department to work, as

Secretary is that it involves a waste of professional talent and

experience without any compensatory advantage.

Thus Shukia opined in favour of having a general administrator

as Secretary and an expert as the Head of Department. He was not in

favour of merging the posts of Head of Department and the Secretary.

The Administrative Reforms Department of Himachal Pradesh

in its report Study of Certain Aspects of Himachal Pradesh

112
Administration (1968, p, 130-32) has made the following

recommendations on this issue: -

"We have already referred to the need for doing away with the system

of executive Head of Departments functioning as ex-officio Secretaries

to the Government and suggest that the various departments should be

suitably grouped and each group placed under the charge of the

Secretary to the Government. Here we want to make it clear that while

we do concede the need for Secretaries we do not advocate a separate

Secretariat of the conventional type for each Secretary. In the

proposed system we expect that Head of Departments should directly

deal with the Secretary in most of the cases. The secretary will

however, need some staff support. For this purpose we visualise two

staff cells - one for planning and co-ordination and the other for

financial and personnel management."

"The proposed arrangement is designed to improve the quality

of decision making through more effective co-ordination and specialised

attention to core functions like planning, personnel administration and

financial management. The administrative department visualised by us

in the reorganised set up has to be conceived as a single composite

unit not only the Secretary and his principle staff but also the Head of

Departments and their headquarter officers. The integration is

intended for the functions to be discharged at the level of the

government for field operations. There is no integration in the sense

113
that the executive Heads retain the primary responsibility and the

power that accompany it."

"All proposals received from Executive Heads of Department

should normally come on their own files and be dealt with by the

Secretary and where necessary, his staff officers under a single file

system. No noting should ordinarily be made in these cases below the

level of the Secretary's staff officer although occasion may arise in

which it may be found necessary to deviate from this principle. An

exception to this principle may have to be made in matters pertaining

to personnel where after receiving the case from HOD a second file may

have to be opened in Secretary's office to maintain an independent

record."

Thus this report suggested for doing away the functioning of

Head of the Department as ex-officio Secretary. It recommended for

keeping the post of Secretary and HOD separate but proposed the

single file system between the Department and the Secretariat to

improve the quality of decision-making.

I^aheshwari Shriram in his book State Government in India

(1979, p, 72) wrote: -

"The relationship between the Secretariat and field agencies

and their respective roles have been a subject of discussion by a

number of Committees appointed to recommend administrative reforms

in State Governments like Bengal (1945), Bombay (1948), Hyderabad

(1950), Mysore (1958), Kerala (1958), Andhra Pradesh (1960),

114
Rajasthan (1963) and Punjab (1966). Their suggestions varied from

minor procedural changes to a radical organisational overhaul. Thus,

irate heads of executive agencies, exasperated at the Secretariat red-

tapism, delays and over lordships have at times wondered if it were

possible to altogether do away with the Secretary between Minister and

the executive agency. This will lead, so runs the argument, to

considerable saving of expenditure and also quicken the pace of

administration. The only Administrative Reforms Committee to lend its

support to this view was the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Reforms

Committee (1960), which came to the conclusion that a phased merger

of the office of the Head of Department with Secretariat was an

inevitable and at the same time the only practical solution to this

problem.

"A less radical variant is to confer ex-officio Secretariat status

on Heads of Department. Argument in favour of this view is that it will

lead to a more expeditious despatch of business and avoid the delay

that inevitably occurs in the processing of the proposals of the

executive agency in the Secretariat. The induction of Heads of

Executive Agency, it is claimed, "will usher in a wind of change" in the

present situation.

The Report of the Administrative Reforms Committee,

Government of Kerala (1958, p, 84-90) on the relationship between

Secretariat and Head of Department pointed out that - it had been

suggested by some that role of Secretary to the Government and Head

115
of Department may be combined in one officer or tfie Head of

Department may function as ex-officio Joint Secretary or Additional

Secretary.

Tlie procedure suggested by Bengal Administrative Enquiry

Committee to eliminate delays, retaining the separate role of the

Secretary and the Head of Department is worth examining. The

Committee suggested that the Head of department should not address

Government by a letter but should send his entire file to the

Secretariat. According to the scheme adopted by the UP Government

Heads of department will send their files to the Secretariat officers on

all matters excepting relating to establishment and departmental

enquiries. But the problem with these suggestions is that in many

offices of HOD, the record rooms are not properly kept and in some

departments there are different HODs for different works.

There is a general impression that examination of proposals

both by Directorate as well as Secretariat is leading to avoidable

delays. Hence various Committees on Administrative Reforms were of

the opinion that continuance of two different tiers of administration i.e.

Secretariat and Directorate at State Headquarters is unnecessary (Shri

K.N. Unithan, ICS, Committee 1960 and l^r. Ram Chandra Reddy

Committee, 1964).

The Committee on Administrative Reforms constituted by the

central government in 1969 (Hanumanthaiah Committee) was of the

opinion that the distinction maintained between policy line level

116
(Secretariat) and policy executing agency (Directorate) need to be

eliminated and that important Directorates like Agriculture, Forest,

Medical and Health, Education, Social Welfare, Commerce and

Industries ought to be merged with the connected Secretariat

Departments and the Heads of these Departments shall be afforded

equivalent ex-officio Secretary's status. This would also eliminate the

tendency on the part of some of the Heads of Departments to infer that

once proposals are sent to Secretariat, they are not at all responsible

until formulation of policy and government orders are communicated to

them.

The Hanumanthaiah Committee (p, 58) suggested the

following steps to improve the relationship and working:-

(i) Each Ministry will consist of two distinct wings, viz. The

Administrative Wing and the Executive Wing, both of which will

function under the overall supervision of the concerned

Secretary. These two wings will function in the same premises

where Minister concerned will also have his office,

(ii) The Secretary functioning at the top most level should be

accountable for the results. He should also involve himself in

the process of implementation and evaluation of policies,

(iii) The Head of Department may be made ex-officio Secretary of

the same Department in exceptional cases so that his long

experience could be profitably utilised in framing policies and

implementing them. This will reduce the duplication of noting

117
 and scrutinising at different levels. In addition, financial

scrutiny should also be provided in the same Ministry instead

of routing each and every file through the Finance l^inistry.

The Report of the Punjab Administrative Reforms Commission

(1966, p, 143) pointed out that:

"Of late there has been a growing tendency on the part

of Secretaries to regard themselves as government and to treat

the heads of departments as subordinates. This unfortunate

tendency on the part of the Secretaries has resulted in

considerable conflict and confusion in the working of several

departments. What is needed is the realisation that the

Secretary and the Head of the Department are members of a

team with the Minister as the captain.

It is unnecessary and undesirable that the proposals approved

by the HODs and submitted to Government for the sanction should be

scrutinised by Assistants and Superintendents. The only use to which

could be put is the adding of previous papers and the recording of

papers finally disposed of. We recommend therefore, that there should

be a nucleus clerical cell composed of to assist for such jobs and this

should be the entire strength of the so-called branch." Thus the

Commission was in favour of single file system.

Administrative Reforms Commission, Andhra Pradesh (1965,

p, 16-32) deliberated on this matter in detail. It mentioned, "The

Secretariat is the highest level office of the government in the State.

118
On its efficient functioning depends tlie proper functioning of the entire

macliinery of Governnnent. It is, tiierefore, necessary to see tinat it

functions efficiently and effectively. During the course of our enquiry,

we found that there is an overwhelming consensus of opinion, that the

Secretariat is slow and leads to great delays; that it has

disproportionately increased in size and that there is no proper co-

ordination between the activities of the different Secretariat

departments. In a few cases, the relationship between the Secretariat,

and the Heads of Departments is not satisfactory. The complaint

everywhere is that while the policies of the Government which are

invariably decided at a high level, are generally well-intentioned, the

implementation of the policies is poor, with the result that considerable

amounts of money are spent without commensurate results being

produced. The Heads of Departments seem to feel that instead of

creating conditions, which will facilitate the smooth carrying out of

work, the Secretariat creates hurdles in their way, which results in

considerable delays. Since the Secretariat is the repository of all the

power and authority of Government, the lack of proper delegation to

lower authorities is also a charge at its door. Sanctions of Government

are even today necessary for trivial matters. In fact even some of the

senior Secretaries to Government who were examined by us agreed

that while the proper function of the Secretariat was to deal with policy

matters, at least forty per cent of the time of the Secretariat was spent

on routine matters, like sanctioning small amounts of expenditure.

119
considering service problems of individuals etc. The Secretariat is not in

toucli with the Field Organisation, sufficiently closely with the result

that what is happening in the field is not often known to the Secretariat

accurately.

There is great need to have one centralised agency to be in

charge of the over all direction, policy. Implementation and evaluation

of the various activities of each department of public administration.

This agency in our opinion cannot be any one than the highest available

under the system. The Secretary to Government, who functions at the

topmost level under the Minister, must, in our view shoulder this

overall responsibility. He should not be content with taking or

obtaining decision on such matters as are sent up to him by the

concerned Head of Department but also involve himself in close watch

over the processes of implementation and evaluation, as well as public

relations connected with matters dealt with in the departments under

his charge. He should function as the leader of a team. He should not

only assist, guide and control his officers in their work, but also himself

assume initiative and responsibility for producing the required results.

In our view, the Head of the Department should no longer function as a

separate entity. He should feel that he is part and parcel of the team

of officers to whom a common task has been entrusted. He should at

all times be fully in the know of the thinking going on in the

"Secretariat" and should himself be able to contribute to that thinking

from any equivalent position. For these reasons we recommend that

120
the Head of each important Department should be given an appropriate

ex-offlcio Secretariat status."

"Under this arrangement the Department of the Secretariat

would consist of two distinct wings viz., the Administrative Wing and

the Executive Wing, both of which will function under the overall

supervision of the Secretary. The Administrative Wing will consist of

a Secretariat Cell, a Finance Cell, a Vigilance Cell and a Public Relations

Cell, while the offices of the concerned Heads of Departments would

form the Executive Wing. The Heads of Departments will not

correspond with the Government by addressing letters to concerned

Secretary as is being done now but will send the files containing their

proposals for approval to the Secretariat with a fully referenced detailed

note and the relevant papers. Only an officer of the Secretariat will

deal with the file. The comments of the Secretariat or the decisions

taken on the proposals will be recorded on the same file. If any further

information is necessary for a decision, it will be obtained on the

telephone or by referring the file bacl< to the Head of Department as is

being done at present in the inter-departmental references in the

Secretariat itself. If financial approval is necessary the file of the head

of Department containing his proposals will be referred to the Finance

Cell provided in the Department, and so on. In other words, the file of

the Head of Department will itself be treated as a Secretariat file is

treated today in the matters where co-ordination or consultation with

other Secretariat Departments or their subordinate units are concerned.

121
If issue of formal Government Orders is necessary, it will be issued

under the signature of the Head of Department, as ex-officio

Secretariat Officer, copies of the order being sent to the Secretariat Cell

and the Finance Cell as may be necessary. The closed files will also be

kept in the offices of the Heads of Departments.

Under this arrangement, the points or objections raised by the

Secretariat Cell will be answered there and then, mostly by discussion,

at appropriate levels and a lot of delay which results when

correspondence has to be carried out by means of letters, will be

avoided.

"The Head of Department will not only be in the know of the

thinking going on in the Secretariat but himself be a part of the

Secretariat. This will increase the contacts between the officers having

field experience and those working in the Secretariat with a general

improvement in mutual understanding in each other's problems and

quick disposal of work.

"The idea that a second scrutiny of the proposals sent by a

Head of Department at the clerical level should be avoided is not a new

one. As early as In 1919, long before the concept of a welfare State,

the Llewellyn Smith Committee appointed by the Government of India

to hold enquiry regarding the organisation and procedure of the Civil

Secretariat at the Centre recommended that the organisation of the

Secretariat should be of the nature of pyramid, the apex of which is the

Secretary and the base the Assistant Secretary. The Bengal

122
Administrative Enquiry Committee (1944-45) suggested tiiat the Head

of the Department should not address Government by letter but should

send his routine file to the Secretariat. The proposals originating in his

Department should be prepared in such a form as to show all relevant

facts, precedents, and reasons for and against. In the Secretariat there

should be no clerical noting whatever, and only officers should note on

this file. The order of the decision taking authority should also be

passed on this file itself. The Kerala Administrative Reforms Committee

(1958) examined this same question, and remarked that the Head of

Department should send his proposal to Government not in the form a

letter, as at present, but in the form of a fully explained note containing

all relevant facts, precedents, and reasons for and against, the note

being sent in duplicate, to the officer in the Secretariat who is

competent to consider it. The proposal should be examined initially in

the Secretariat only by the officer to whom it is sent or by a higher

officer. After final orders are issued by Government, the copy

containing the remarks of the Secretariat and the original orders

passed would be retained by Government as record and the other copy

would be returned to the head of the department with the orders of the

Government. Administrative Reforms Committee, 1960 appointed by

the Andhra Pradesh Government recommended the merger of the

offices of the Heads of Departments with those of the Secretariat in a

phased programme, so as to avoid double scrutiny of cases at the lower

levels.

123
 "Almost every one whom we examined including tlie

Secretaries to Government suggested that the Secretariat examination

should be at a higher level, clerks only assisting in purely routine

matters like - putting up precedents, references, rules etc. We are

convinced that examination of a case at lower level is not only

unnecessary but also often results in inadequate and superficial

scrutiny. We, therefore, strongly feel that examination of cases in the

Secretariat should be done only at or above the level of Assistant

Secretaries. So long as the staffs at lower levels such as Assistants

Section Officers, etc. are available, the tendency will continue to allow

them to initiate the noting. Therefore we recommend that in the

Secretariat there should be no sections at all on the pattern existing

now in many of the Departments and the Assistant Secretary should

form the base. Of course, each officer in the Secretariat including the

Assistant Secretary should have a stenographer and one or two

Assistants merely to put up files without noting and to prepare other

purely clerical work.

"We appreciate the need for independent scrutiny of proposals,

technical or otherwise, received from a Head of Department by an

experienced administrator, who can be expected to take a broad and

general view. We also realise that it is necessary to give the Minister in

charge of a Department the assistance of an experienced administrator

who can advise him in the formulation of the policies of Government.

124
In the set up that we have suggested we have provided for both these

matters.

"For obvious reasons, this scheme under which the files of the

Head of the Department move to the Secretariat cannot be applied to

all the Heads of Departments. This will not apply for Instance to such

Heads of Departments as are away from Hyderabad, viz., the Agent to

the Government of Andhra Pradesh and New Delhi or the Chief

Engineers for Nagarjuna sagar or Srisailam or other projects. This will

also not apply for such statutory Institutions as the Andhra Pradesh

Public Service Commission or the High Court. Correspondence in

respect of these Heads of Departments will continue to be carried out

through letters as is being done now but In their cases also scrutiny of

the correspondence and the proposals will start at the level of the

Assistant Secretary.

"We are not recommending ex-officio Secretariat status to all

the Heads of Departments. In our opinion it Is necessary to start with

to give Secretariat status only to those who are doing important work

and spending large amounts particularly on work connected with

development activities. Thus, we are recommending that the Heads of

Departments may be grouped into three different categories: -

"Category-I - Those that should have ex-officio Secretariat

status and in respect of whom the files move in original to the

Secretariat from the office of the Head of Department;

125
 Category-II - Those that could not have ex-officio Secretariat

status and who continue to refer their proposals to Government by

letters as at present;

Category III - The others.

"As regards category I I I above, it is our intention that their

proposals should also be referred to the Secretariat on their own files,

as has been recommended by Category I. However, to avoid confusion

and to stabilise the change that we have recommended in respect of

Category I without too many problems, we suggest that to begin with,

the departments in category I I I should also continue to work like those

in Category I I and that they should be changed to working on the lines

of Category I, as soon as the Secretariat department concerned feels

that the new scheme has been stabilised and that the extension of the

scheme of Heads of Departments in Category I I I will not cause

confusion and difficulties.

On the principle that ''what is, is good", the Government

departments, particularly the Secretariat is strongly resistant to

change, especially when the changes are somewhat drastic and involve

new procedures and new customs. It is possible; therefore, that

suggestions will be made to Government that changes recommended

by us may be tried in one or two departments on an experimental basis

in the first instance. In our view, such a step will be most undesirable.

It is obvious that during the experimental period those who have to

relinquish their privileges or their authority or importance will work not

126
towards making a new scheme successful, but to minimise its benefits.

We recommend, therefore, that the changes recommended by us

should be introduced simultaneously in all the Departments of

Government at the same time, so that the officers concerned do not

hanker after the return of the old order.

Thus Andhra Pradesh Administrative Reforms Commission was

clearly in favour of single file system and keeping the two offices

separate. At the same time it also advocated for scrutiny and

finalisation of financial proposal in the Directorate itself by creating a

Finance Cell.

Padhi A.P. (1988, p, 9-10) in his book "State Administration in

India" elaborated "the relationship between the Secretariat and the

field departments has created several problems at different times. The

Secretariat has encroached upon the sphere of the Executive

departments. The HODs feel that they are kept as subordinate to the

secretariat departments. It is so because the inter-relationship

between the Secretariat Department and the executive department is

yet to be clearly defined. The Heads of Departments also at times,

bypass the Secretariat and get approval of the Minister directly.

"The acceptable principle of relationship between the

Secretariat and the heads of Departments is given in Tottenham's

Report on Re-organisation of the Central Government, 1945-46. He

has pointed out that the Minister represents tiie "will", the

Secretariat represents the "brain" and the Heads of Department

127
represent the "head and hands". But it is difficult to maintain this

ideal relationship during emergency and crisis in actual practice. Under

such conditions the Secretariat dominates. Therefore, the Secretariat

appointment is considered prestigious and Heads of Departments

hankers after Secretariat status. The Administrative Reforms

Commission Report on the State Administration, November, 1969 (page

30) suggested that there should be uniform delegations of authority to

the heads of Departments and secondly an effort should be made by

the Secretariat to see that such delegation is effective at all levels.

There is a third suggestion also to confer ex-officio status to Heads of

Departments.

There is another suggestion to resolve the conflict between the

Secretariat and the Heads of Departments relating to their relationship.

It is the combination of roles of the Secretariat and the Heads of

Departments. The arguments in favour of it are (a) it will be

expeditious and will avoid delay, (b) it will strengthen the inter-action

between the field work and policy working, (c) it will fill the

psychological gaps between the HODs and the Secretariat and, lastly

(d) it will smoothen the relationship between the generalist and the

technical Heads of Departments. There is another suggestion of

introducing single file system so that Heads of Department and the

Secretary should give their opinion on the same file.

Rai Haridwar writing on Bihar State Administration (Padhi,

1988, p, 115-116) mentioned -

128
 "It is pertinent to observe at tiiis point tliat the Secretariat

may be organised on two patterns. The ^split system' and the

^amalgamated system'. According to the former a clear line of

demarcation is drawn between the functions and responsibilities of the

Secretariat Officers and the Head of Departments. Broadly speaking

the former has to concentrate mainly upon the policy making and

programme formulation and act as the watch-dog of the

implementation of the policies and programmes and the sole

responsibility for the implementation of government policies and

programmes lie upon the HODs. Under the amalgamated system, such

demarcation of functions and responsibilities between these two sets of

officers is generally obliterated. The Secretariat officers are also

responsible for the implementation of government policies and

programmes along with the Heads of Departments."

Awasthi Anand Parkash while writing on State Administration

in Madhya Pradesh (Padhi, 1988, p, 271-273) pointed out -

"The relationship between the Secretariat and its field agencies

is a problem in the State Administration that has led to much

discussion, debate and controversy and all the Commissions and

Committees appointed since independence to enquire into the working

of the State Administration have invariably given due attention to this

problem and made numerous recommendations. Broadly speaking the

role of the Secretariat is to help the Minister in policy formulation while

the executive agencies are Incharge of implementation of these

129
policies. In brief, the Secretaries may be lil<e tfie "eyes and ears" of

tlie {Ministers and Heads of Departnnents as tlieir "iiands". However,

such a broad distinction is too general and vague and it is just

impossible to define where the policy-making ends and execution

begins. In our country due to historical reasons the Secretariat has

assumed much authority thus leaving the field agencies weak, anaemic

and dependent.

"Undoubtedly efforts have been made in various States to

solve this problem and there have been suggestions in abundance

varying all the way from radical organisational overhaul to minor

procedural change. However, there has emerged more or less a

consensus about the need for a liberal delegation or powers and

authority to the executive agencies. In consequences various State

governments have framed rules for such delegation. However, such

delegations are often made peace-meal and with reservations and the

general approach is one of the hesitancy and caution. Secondly, the

Executive Departmental Heads are all the time complaining about

interference from above i.e. the Secretariat, do not always allow their

subordinate to exercise their delegated powers freely and without

restraint. It has been observed that a major reason for this is the

failure to define the proper role of the HOD vis-a-vis the field agencies.

"The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Reforms Commission

(1970-72) went into this problem at some length and analysed it in

some depth. It has made a radical recommendation namely that of the

130
substitution of two parallel hierarchies of the Secretariat officials and

officials of the departnnents by integrating the composite office on the

model of the Whitehall system In Britain. In Its own words, an

administrative organisation must provide for specialisation in the

various aspects of administration. This is neglected at present. This

major deficiency will have to be made good when Improvement of the

prevalent system Is attempted. Therefore, the new arrangement will

have to be such that specialist assistance in administration is available

both to the Secretary and to the Head of Department. In that event

parallel hierarchies in the Secretariat and under the Head of the

Department will involve duplication of these arrangements. Combining

the two offices has the advantage of avoiding such duplication. And it

should be possible to entrust these specialised functions to personnel of

higher calibre by concentrating the work in a single office thereby

improving the quality of performance and avoiding dispersal of scarce

manpower and financial resources.

"A composite office will permit more specialisation in the

division of work than would be possible in separate offices, ensuring

that every aspect of the work to be done is handled by persons chosen

for their competence in that aspect, reducing the dependence on

generalists. These advantages are in our view, sufficient justification for

giving up the existing parallel hierarchies and substituting for them an

integrated office to look after the work of both." However, this

recommendation has remained unimplemented."

131
 Arora Ramesh K. (Padhi, 1988 p, 513)) while writing on

Rajasthan State Administration mentioned "tiie Government of

Rajasthan acting on tlie recommendations of tiie Committee, (1964)

accorded tiie Ciiief Engineer of all the three engineering departments -

PWD, Irrigation and PHD ex-officio status of Additional Secretaries.

Likewise, technical assistance to these Chief Engineers was made ex-

officio Deputy Secretaries. This practice was later extended to a few

other departments and now a certain Heads, and Additional Joint Heads

of Departments are given ex-officio secretarial status. It may be noted

that the Secretariat Re-organisation Committee (1969-70) opposed the

system of according ex-officio Secretarial status to specialists on the

plea that excessive administrative burden on the specialists, which such

a status would compel, is most likely to sap the energies and time of

these experts whose concerns should basically be developments in their

own specialised areas.

H.P. Administrative Reforms Department in its Report of study

of certain aspects of Himachal Pradesh Administration (1968, p, 170 &

p, 138-139) has made the following recommendations: -

i) "On the administrative plane Himachal Pradesh at present is a

mixture of two well recognised systems - one in which a

Secretary is interposed between executive Head of the

Department and the Minister and the other in which the

executive Head of the Department himself functions as ex-

officio Secretary to the Government. The Development

132
 Commissioner is example of first category and tine Chief

Conservator of Forest, Chief Engineer, Multipurpose Projects

and Director of Health who function as ex-officio Secretaries to

the Government in their respective departments belong to the

second. Till lately, the Director of Education also functioned as

ex-officio Secretary but the Secretariat work in this field has

now been separated from the executive work and assigned to

judicial Secretary.

On merit it is difficult to propound a rigid doctrine. However,

in the present stage of administrative development in Himachal Pradesh

it is necessary to have Secretaries who are distinct from the Head of

Departments to enable the Government to get the benefit of second

opinion especially in policy and personnel cases."

Both the executive head and his two staff officers at the

headquarters will be free to consult the two staff aides of the secretary

even in matters falling within the delegated sector. However, as far as

possible, such consultation should be oral. In matters beyond the

powers delegated to the executive head, the proposals will be

formulated by the headquarters office of the executive head on its own

files and referred to the staff officer (finance and personnel). This,

however, should not be construed as preventing the executive head

from submitting any case direct to the Secretary. What cases or classes

of cases should be seen by the secretary and what decided at his staff

officer level, would be for the secretary to prescribe. Cases revealing a

133
difference of opinion between the executive head and staff officer in the

secretariat department would in any case be decided at secretary's

level.

"All proposals from executive heads of departments would

normally come on their own files and be dealt with by the Secretary

and where necessary, his staff officers on these files under a "single

file system". No noting should ordinarily be done in these cases below

the level of the Secretary's staff officers although occasions may arise

in which it may be found necessary to deviate from this principle. An

exception to this procedure may have to be made in certain kinds of

personnel cases in which, after receiving the case from the head of

department, a second file may have to be opened in the Secretary's

office for purposes of maintaining an independent and confidential

record.

"The staff aides of the secretary will need to maintain close

liaison with departments like Planning, Finance and Services and

officers of these departments should be able to inspect their work,

guide them and acquaint their secretaries with their assessments.

Similarly the staff aides of the secretary should keep an overseeing eye

on the healthy functioning of the offices of executive heads in their

respective spheres. They should also visit the corresponding branches

in the headquarters establishment of the executive heads; conduct

test-checks to see that all is well with them and generally advise and

assist them in improving their efficiency.

134
 For the efficient functioning of the proposed organisational

arrangements, it is desirable that the Secretary's office and the

headquarters organisation of the executive heads concerned should be

housed in one building or in adjacent buildings."

^* Thus the recommendations of various Committees,

Commissions and Scholars have ranged from complete merger of

Secretariat and Directorate to minor procedural change. However,

most of the Commissions have recommended for keeping the

Secretariat and the Directorates separate. At the same time, to

improve the decision-making and to cut short delays they have

recommended for single file system under which Directorates files

should move directly to Secretary avoiding the noting in Secretariat

Section.

However, no State in India has fully implemented the

recommendations of these Commissions and Committees. Most of the

Secretariat and Directorate continues to be separate. The

correspondence between them is through letter and not by sending the

file itself as has been recommended by most of the scholars and

Commissions. In most of the States the post of Secretary to the

government is prerogative of IAS and HODs are by and large

departmental officers. In some States ex-officio status has been

assigned to HOD at appropriate level to pave the way for single file

movement.

135
 In case of Punjab the following Directors have been given

appropriate Secretariat status:

(i) Director Local Bodies.

(ii) Director, RDD.

(ill) Director, Treasury.

(Iv) Director, Food and Civil Supplies.

(v) Director, Information and Public Relations.

(Source: Punjab State Government Secretariat)

In the State of Haryana also the above Directors have been

assigned the appropriate Secretariat status. The common thread is

that only the IAS Directors have been given this privilege. No non-IAS

has been given ex-officio Secretariat status. In Rajasthan Law

Secretary and Secretary, IGNP are non-IAS Secretaries. The following

12 HODs are also ex-officio Deputy/Special Secretaries to the

Government:

(i) Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj.

(ii) Labour Commissioner.

(iii) Additional Commissioner, Food.

(iv) Director, Information and Public Relations.

(v) Director, Tourism.

(vi) Director, Information Technology.

(vii) Director, Social Welfare.

(viii) Director, Medical (lEC) Department.

(ix) Director, Land & Building Tax Department.

136
 (x) state Project Director, DPIP.

(xi) Project Director, RULDP.

(xii) Director, Science and Teclinology.

(Source: Letter of Alok Gupta, Deputy Secretary, Department

of Personnel, Dated 4/9/2001 - Appendix III)

As far as Himachal Pradesii is concerned, in tlie past, once

Chief Engineer, PWD was also made ex-officio Secretary PWD, but it

was one time exception. At present two HODs also are ex-officio

Secretaries, one is Chairman, HPSEB who Is also Secretary, MPP and

other is Principal Adviser (Planning) who is also ex-officio Secretary

(Planning). Except Chairman, HPSEB who has always been ex-officio

Secretary, MPP other cases are aberrations rather than rule.

At lower level to the post of Secretary, Director, RDD has been

given ex-offlcio Special Secretary status, in the Department of Rural

Development. From some time past Director of Information and Public

Relations has also been accorded the status of ex-officIo Special

Secretary. This practice started when IAS officer was posted as

Director, Public Relations. The Director, Education has always been

separate office since Himachal got the Statehood.

In UK, The major structural reforms were introduced by the

Thatcher government with introduction of executive agencies where the

policy formulation was kept in the Ministry/Department and execution

was given to executive agencies. Hence there is a total separation of

policy formulation and execution. In U.K. till March, 1997 more than

137
130 executive agencies were formed where tiie relationship governs by

the performance agreement between Secretary of the State and the

Chief Executive Officer of the executive agency in place of traditional

system of sending files on each and every aspect of the governance

(Duggett Michael, 1997, p, 15-17).

3.3.b Policy-making Relationsiiip

The West Bengal Committee on Administrative Reforms (1982,

Dubhashi, 1986) made the following recommendations regarding policy

formulation relationship between the Secretariat and the Directorates.

"The Secretariat is essentially an organisation to advise the

political executive on policy formulation. As indicated earlier

administration by definition covers the entire gamut from policy

formulation to programme implementation. The task of policy

formulation can never be divorced from those of programme

implementation or as the policy will tend to be unrealistic, practical

difficulty will not be taken into account in policy formulation. Those

who are turning innocent conditions in the field can only produce

Utopian schemes with no chance of success. This is particularly

important in India where there is such a big gap between the

conceptual sophistication of the intellectuals and the condition

and reality of the masses. A policy is not worth anything except in

terms of its practical implementation. It is, therefore, of crucial

importance that those responsible for advising on policies in Secretariat

are persons with wide variety of administrative experience as district,

138
divisional, and State level. The success of our planned programmes

depends on a single line of understanding and communication from

Delhi right up to the village. It Is this, which makes the field

experience of IAS officers of unique significance to the task of policy

formulation.

Dutta Ray Basudeb (1972, p, 246) while writing on the

working of Assam Secretariat suggested: -

"that the Secretariat should concern itself to policy

formulation, consequent legislation, co-ordination of the activities of the

various agencies, and general policy direction. All other functions

should be entrusted to the head of department."

The report of the Administrative Reforms Committee,

Government of Kerala (1958, p, 82^83) proposed as follows on policy-

making relationship -

"The existence of a Secretariat in addition to the office of the

HOD arises from the need for separating question of policy from actual

detail of administration and to need to attend the work connected with

financial control and legislation. During the course of enquiry we found

that there is a general opinion that the Secretariat has become slow

moving leading to great delays. The causes for delay are various and

depend on the nature of work done in the Secretariat and how that

work is done. By nature of work we mean the types of matter, which

the Secretariat should deal. By the term how the work is done we refer

to the techniques and procedures, the structure of the organisation, the

139
quality of the personnel. The Secretariat work should be confined to

the franning of policies, laying down rules and principles of procedure

and work connected with legislation. The Head of Department should

be responsible for carrying out the policies to effect and should for this

purpose be given sufficient delegated authority. This does not mean

that Heads of Departments will have no right or responsibility or role In

the framing of policies. Conversely, it does not mean that the

Secretariat is divested of all responsibility for seeing that the policies

laid down are carried out. The responsibility for framing policies and

for their proper implementation rests with the Ministry and it is,

therefore, necessary for government to ensure that its policies are

carried out properly and in time by the departments. Only, the way

this should be done is not to retain all the powers which are necessary

for execution with the Government but to see that delegated powers

are properly exercised."

According to the report of the Bombay Administrative Enquiry

Committee, 1948 the existence of Secretariat in Government

organisation is on principle of separation question of policy from current

administration so that the latter Is entirely handed over to a separate

agency. These are executive departments and in the language of Public

Administration Line Agencies."

The Punjab Administrative Reforms Commission (1966, p,

151) stated: -

140
 "The HOD forwards a scheme and later has to discuss it with

an Under Secretary or a Deputy Secretary. He pockets his humiliation

but the discussion is not final. At a subsequent stage he has to discuss

the same scheme again with the Secretary and again with the Minister

in the presence of the Secretary. But time has its own laws and the

result is that only a fraction of his time is left to the HOD to attend to

his work, to supervise his staff, to supervise the execution of the

scheme and to use the technical ability for public good.

Sapru Radhakrishnan while describing the State Administration in

Punjab and Haryana (PadhI, 1988, p, 427-428) has commented "It has

been observed that most of officers in Punjab and Haryana Civil

secretariat now have to handle only routine matters for instance a large

number of cases they deal with are related to transfers and

promotions of State Government officials. It is the recommendation

of the legislator and other influential politicians that matters more than

the merit for ordering transfers. Another category of cases which the

senior officers at the Secretariat now have to deal with pertains to "off

the cup promises" made by the Chief Minister and his Ministerial

colleagues at the public functions. Most of such announcements do not

form part of the government programmes and policies. The third

category of cases relates to disciplinary action against petty officials.

Such cases are generally processed at the lower level in accordance

with the rules and need only the casual attention of the Secretaries.

This situation coupled with lack of dynamism at the political level has

141
resulted in marked decrease of workload for most of the Secretaries

and other senior officers. Often Secretariat is found taking upon itself

the executive functions of the field departments. This causes

conflicts, confusions and delays by the overiapping of functions.

"As regards the relationship between the Minister and the

Secretary, it is not one of mutual trust, confidence and respect. Often

it Is found that personal staff of some Ministers directly deals with

Heads of Department and other executive functionaries in official

matters. This situation creates an atmosphere in which Secretary

neither feels enthused nor sees any scope to demonstrate his initiate.

There is, therefore, the need for a new structural pattern in the State

Secretariat to accelerate the speedy despatch of the business of the

State Government."

He had further mentioned (p, 433), ''the existing system in

relation to Secretariat and Directorates offers wide scope for erosion of

responsibilities for administrative failures. The Heads of the field

departments often complain that the Secretariat machinery creates

hurdles instead of facilitating smooth execution of programmes and

policies. They also feel dissatisfied, as the officers at the Secretariat do

not give very often-important proposals coming from them due

consideration and weightage. On the contrary, the Secretaries attribute

the failure of programmes to the inefficiency of the directorates

(executive agencies). The Secretaries complain that very often heads

142
of field departments bypass them and try to get approval of the

Minister/Ministers directly."

"While the Secretariat is essentially an "office of records, co-

ordination and overall control and supervision, the executive heads are

responsible for the successful implementation of government policies

and programmes." The relationship between the two should be one of

mutual trust, confidence and harmony. If there were a friction between

them the result would be inter-locking situation thereby affecting the

performance of the State administration.

Thus the Secretariat is essentially an organisation to advise

the political executive on policy formulation and the Directorate is to

execute the policy formulated by the Secretariat. However, over the

years the situation has changed and Secretariat appears to have been

burdened with postings and transfer, establishment matters as well as

in routine administrative matters leaving very less time with Secretaries

to ponder over policy issues. The situation is no good in case of the

Directorates. In place of implementing the policies and monitoring its

execution, it is also busy more in routine administrative works. The

real implementation work is left for field staff posted at district level

without proper guidance from the above.

In case of Education Department of Himachal Pradesh the

latest standing orders regarding disposal of cases under rules of

Business of HP, 1971 were issued on 18*^^ August, 1998. As per the

143
standing Order the following types of cases are required to be disposed

off at tine level of Minister: -

(i) Vidhan Sabha/Lok Sabha Business.

(ii) Public Accounts Comnnittee and Estimates Committee.

(iii) Legal matters like framing of Act/Rules.

(iv) Formulation of new programme and setting up of new

Institutions.

(v) Establishment matters including postings and disciplinary

proceedings against class I and I I officers.

Though the transfer and posting of officer/officials is not

specifically mentioned in the Standing Orders but by practice this power

vests in Minister. As the total establishment of the education

department is very large, therefore, Education Minister devotes

substantial time on transfer and posting work in place of other policy

matters.

As has been mentioned above, in U.K. there is a clear

separation of policy formulation and its execution. The department

frame policies, which are executed by the executive agencies (Britain,

1997, p, 93). On the analogy of U.K. in Himachal Pradesh also, there is

need to focus on policy aspect in the Secretariat rather than on the

routine administrative work. This is possible If we make complete

separation of policy making from execution by divesting the Secretariat

from execution work like establishment matters and issue of financial

144
sanctions etc. and entrusting these worl<s to tfie Directorates. Tliis will

ensure better policy making as well as its implementation.

3.3.C Relationship in Personnel Administration

Regarding Personnel Administration it is necessary to highlight

the recommendations of the Fulton Committee. In Britain the Fulton

Committee Report on the Civil Service in Britain (The Civil Service -

Report of the Committee 1966-68, Chairman Load Fulton) was a

revolutionary document so far as civil service reforms go. The Fulton

Committee Report stands for a career civil service rather than a political

civil service such as in the tradition of USA or party cadres such as

those existing in the communist countries. Second it also stands for a

unified service; the service the Report says must be an integrated

whole. The complex interlinking of department requires a common

approach and methods of work. It also recommended a class-less

civil service rationalising structure upgrades. The recommendations

of the Committee were directed to one single objective to make the civil

service fully professional and dynamic to the task of modern

administration.

In India we have different Civil Service cadres for different

departments and have not adopted the recommendations of the Fulton

Committee.

I^aheshwari Shriram (1984, p, 79) pointed out: -

145
 "For the posts of Heads of Departments man with initiative and

drive as well as experience and knowledge of the subject matter should

be appointed. The endeavour should be to pick out the suitable

personnel from the corresponding State service to man these posts. If

no suitable men are available from corresponding State Services there

should be no objection to consider an IAS officer with the necessary

background. For Secretary's post technical and functional officers of

the State service should not be picked. In areas such as Agriculture,

Engineering, there should be no bar to the consideration of relevant

specialist officers along with generalist officers for posting as

Secretaries."

Further Maheshwari Shriram (1979, p, 62) mentioned that the

Secretariat should deal with the following personnel matters: -

(i) Approval of service rules and amendments thereto,

(ii) Cases pertaining to senior appointments/promotions/transfers

and cases of disciplinary proceedings against these officers,

(iii) Creation of posts, their extension and continuance, re-

employment, resignations, special pays and allowances and

pensions not within the powers of the Head of Department.

Dutta Ray Basudeb (1972, p, 247) while stating about Assam

Secretariat has observed:

"In personnel administration the Generalist or a Specialist is a

perennial theme. There are two schools of thought and the discussion

is still going on. Let us discuss this question. While the Heads of

146
Department should be specialist like Director of l^edical Services as the

Head of the Medical Department, the Secretaries to the Government

should be generalists because the specialist will not be able to

understand the relative importance of his own functions as a part of the

whole. As a matter of fact very few specialists seem to care about

anything beyond their own speciality. This does not mean that

specialists are narrow-minded human beings but concentration and

preoccupation with their speciality breeds in them impatience with

anything not directly in their line of vision. An excited Director of

Education is likely to see all else as an adjunct. This mental status on

the part of a specialist has created disunity rather than order, confusion

instead of coherence. Human happiness cannot be promoted until each

technologist has learnt to subordinate his expertness to the common

purpose. If this principle is accepted, the Chief Engineer should not be

the Secretary to the Government.

Regarding personnel administration the Administrative

Reforms Commission, Andhra Pradesh (1965, p, 19 & 35) suggested

the following:

The senior-most and selected officers should be appointed to

the posts of Secretaries to the Government - their prospects in

promotion being suitably protected by permitting them to draw the

emoluments of the higher post while holding charge of the post of

Secretary. We suggest that this may be done by creating a suitable

number of posts of Senior Secretaries carrying special personal status

147
and emoluments equivalent to the Members of Board of Revenue. This

will safeguard service prospects and will avoid the psychological

problems of individual incumbents who but for the change

recommended by us would have been entitled to be appointed as

Members of the Board.

As regards the inter se seniority in status and rank between

the Secretary and the Head of Department, the Secretary shall have

precedence over the Head of the Department. The Minister will

continue to be advised in all-important and policy matters by the

Secretary. The Head of Department will also have free access to the

Minister and may directly submit files to him. Whenever such cases are

directly submitted to the Minister, they will, as usual, be returned

through the Secretary, so that the latter is kept fully informed of what

goes on in the Department as a whole. It is of the essence for the

success of our proposals that considerable powers both technical and

financial should be delegated to the officers lower in rank to that of the

Head of Department himself, because we envisage that the lower

echelons in the Department at Headquarters should also be permitted

to refer files and proposals to the Secretariat Cell at the appropriate

level. In other words, the proposals emanating from the office of Head

of Department should not necessarily have to pass to the Secretariat

only through the Head of Department himself. For example, it will be

open to a Deputy Director functioning under the Director of Agriculture

at Headquarters to refer his proposals to an Assistant Secretary in the

148
Secretariat Cell for the approval of Government (the Secretariat Cell

will of course consult the Finance Cell where necessary). In this way,

Secretariat advice and services will be available at the lower levels and

will relieve the Director of Agriculture of much routine; leaving him free

to devote more of his energies to matters requiring technical guidance

and supervision. In this way, valuable administrative competence and

independent thinking at lower levels will also be built.

"It is essential that officers occupying senior posts in the

Secretariat not only have considerable field experience but also

continue to replenish their knowledge of field conditions. The

Secretariat now comprises a number of officers who have no field

experience at all. Only the officers in the Indian Administrative Service

Cadre and the few officers in the Revenue Department who are drawn

from the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service have adequate field experience.

I^ost of the officers start their life in the Secretariat as Assistants and

are promoted in due course to various levels in the hierarchy. A few of

them are sent out on deputation for short periods for field experience.

When recalled to the Secretariat they continue there during the rest of

their service. This does not enable them to acquire or replenish the

knowledge of field conditions adequately. We have recommended that

in future only officers should deal with proposals coming to the

Secretariat, and it is desirable that more and more officers be drawn to

the Secretariat from the field staff. A systematic arrangement should

be made under which Secretariat officers in the concerned Departments

149
are regularly exchanged with field officers. For example. Assistant

Secretaries in the Co-operative Department could go out as Deputy

Registrars and Deputy Registrars could function in the Secretariat as

Assistant Secretaries. This arrangement may not always be possible in

the case of technical departments like the Engineering or the Medical

Services, but, in our view, every attempt should be made to ensure

that officers in charge of administration in the technical departments

and the officers in the Secretariat have opportunities to exchange their

places every five years or so."

In U.K., administrative power like appointment, posting and

placement in an executive agency completely rest with the CEO of the

executive agency. I^oreover the civil service in U.K. is unified in seven

grades. Grade I to IV is controlled in central level for posting in any

department and below that remain in a particular executive

agency/department. This has brought greater unification and cohesion

in British Civil Service (Duggett, 1997, p, 5-6).

In New Zealand, Chief Executives are for five years contracts.

They in turn, have full powers to hire and fire their staff and fix their

salaries, which are wholly related to performance (Fifth Central Pay

Commission, page, 84).

If we see the position in Himachal Pradesh, in the department

of Rural Development the Director is always from IAS cadre and Joint

Director from HAS. The Secretary RDD is always an IAS officer. In

case of Education Department the Secretary is from IAS cadre whereas

150
the Director is always teciinical person being promoted from the senior

most Joint Directors. Recently government has created a post of

Additional Director in the Directorate of Education who is of generalist

services i.e. HAS

As far as the senior staff of the Directorate are concerned, in

RDD as well as in Education Department, posting and disciplinary action

are examined in the Secretariat. In case of RDD upto class I I I the

power of disciplinary action (major penalty) vests in the

Secretary/Minister. In the case of class I I I and IV the authority to

impose the minor penalty has been delegated to DC/BDOs vide

Department of Personnel order dated the 7*^^ December, 1996.

Similarly BDOs have also been given power to initiate ACRs of

Extension Officers of Agriculture and Horticulture Departments posted

In Blocks vide Secretary (RD) order dated the 20*^^ July, 1996.

Moreover for writing Annual Confidential Report, sufficient delegations

have been made to field officer vide office order dated 30/8/96 of

Secretary, Rural Development. Like in case of Gram Panchayat and

Vikas Adhikaris, BDO is the reporting officer and ADC/ADM is the

Accepting Authority. Whereas in case of Education Department Class I

officers disciplinary powers vest in Minister and rest vest in Director.

Director of Education is heavily burdened in this matter as very little

further delegations have been made in disciplinary cases. There is a

need to delegate administrative powers to the Directors and Directors

should further delegate it to its district level officers. For accountability

151
and better service delivery appointment and posting of ciass I I and

below should be completely delegated to the Directors. I^oreover the

staff of the Secretariat and the Directorates should be inter-changeable

to bring vitality and efficiency in both the organisations.

3.3.d Level of Financial Delegations: -

On this issue, Administrative Reforms Department of Himachal

Pradesh in its study (1968, p, 134) had suggested:

In the field of financial administration. Secretary and Heads of

Departments should have sufficient financial delegation. I^aximum

possible delegation should be made to Head of Department to increase

his effectiveness. The executive Head should be empowered to

authenticate sanctions on behalf of the Secretary."

Maheshwari Shriram (1979, p, 62) had suggested that the

following financial matters should be with the Secretariat: -

(i) Scrutiny and approval of departmental budget, estimates,

major appropriation of accounts, surrender of funds in

supplementary grants,

(ii) Financial sanctions not within the competence of the Head of

the Department,

(ill) Write off cases beyond the power of the Head of the

Department and audit objections regarding the offices of the

Head of Department.

152
 Punjab Administrative Reforms Commission (1966, p, 153-

154) on financial delegation had pointed out: -

^^Much of the time of HOD could be saved by adequate

clear and proper financial and administrative delegation to him.

He has to devote most of his time sending up cases for financial

sanctions, administrative approval or for transfer of staff and

has, therefore, to devote more time to these matters than would

require if he himself had the power for final disposal. After

passing of the budget the HOD should be left free to implement

schemes. To guard against the errors of procedure, the HOD of a

heavy spending department can be provided with a financial

adviser".

"Delegation of powers is necessary for removal of delays. The

financial and administrative powers can be conferred on HOD or officials

below him through delegation. However, the basic position appears to

have been misinterpreted as if delegation were a favour and not

just a form, a channel through which government authorises a senior

official to exercise administrative and financial powers delegation as

an administrative device is a path to achieve result and not a

wall around government in which a door may be opened now and

then as a very special case (p, 145)."

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Reforms Commission (1965, p,

20-25) had suggested that in the Secretariat there should be a Finance

Cell. -

153
 "This will be a compact unit led by a Financial Adviser of the

status of Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary or Assistant Secretary and

adequate other staff, depending on the size of the budget of the

department and the kind of financial problems involved in its day to day

work. The officers and the staff of this Cell will be on the strength of

the Finance Department. They will be responsible both to the Finance

Department as well as the administrative department to which they are

attached. Their annual confidential reports will be submitted by the

Head of the Finance Cell to the Finance Secretary/I^inister through the

Secretary of the administrative department to which they are attached,

the latter being entitled to record his views on the individual

performances of the officers concerned, including the Head of the

Financial Cell himself. In the event of disagreement between views of

an officer of the administrative department and/or the Finance Cell

and/or the Secretariat Cell attempt should be made to arrive at an

agreement as far as possible, by discussion but too much time should

not be wasted in prolonged arguments at lower levels. As soon as it is

clear that agreement is not likely to be achieved at his own level the

officer of the administrative department should submit the file to his

own superior who should take up the matter at his own level with a

higher officer of the Secretariat or the Finance Cell as the case may be.

If still no agreement is reached, the matter should be placed before the

Secretary.

154
 "Except in the matters where budget provision has not been

made or matters where the budget provision has been made without

proper scrutiny, which fact the Finance Department should indicate

when accepting the budget proposals, the Secretary's decision should

be final, any objections of the Finance Cell notwithstanding; in other

cases, the proposals should be referred to the Finance Department at

the Secretary level, with the recommendations of the Secretary of the

administrative department.

"The Finance Cell though manned by staff who are well versed

in financial lore will be under sufficient control of the Secretary of the

administrative department and there will be every incentive for the

staff to be co-operative and helpful to the department. We are

confident that under the proposed set up the present complaints,

brought to our notice by a number of witnesses, that financial scrutiny

is a serious delaying factor in the implementation of schemes, etc.,

would go. We suspect that in many cases the Finance Department is

accused of causing delays while the fault, in fact lies with the defective

or piecemeal presentation of the proposals by the administrative

department for decision, and we may safely assume that defective

presentation by Heads of Departments would be seriously discouraged.

One more word about the provision permitting the Secretary

of the Administrative Department to take a final decision for which

budget provision has already been made. Apprehension may arise that

this may lead to unwise spending. We do not think so. Firstly, the

155
power to over-rule the Financial Adviser is being restricted to

expenditure, which is provided in the budget after proper scrutiny of

the Finance Department Initially. Secondly, we rely on the experience,

good judgement and the administrative acumen of an officer of

Secretary's seniority and expect him, as we have already said, to

ensure the observance of the canons of financial propriety.

Additionally, we suggest, as a further safeguard, if the Government

wish to provide one, that cases in which the Financial Adviser has been

over-ruled may be reported by the Financial Adviser to the Finance

Secretary, so that the latter can, if he thinks that a serious irregularity

has been committed, bring the matter to the notice of the Finance

Minister and if the latter so desires, to place such cases before the

Council of Ministers for their consideration and for taking corrective

measures. We feel sure that in actual practice such cases will not arise

at all.

"In regard to matters which have not been already included in

the budget or which have not already been scrutinised in the Finance

Department before inclusion in the budget, the Finance Cell will act as

an outpost of the Finance Department proper, in the same way as the

Financial Advisers of the various departments are working today. In

such matters the views of the Cell will not be liable to be over-ruled by

the Secretary of the Administrative Department, and the proposal,

which the Cell is not competent to dispose of, will be submitted to the

Finance Secretary or the Finance Minister in the usual way. In our

156
view, it will be wise in the initial stages of the scheme if persons of

senior Deputy Secretary's status are posted as Financial Advisers to

head Finance Cells, at least in departments with large budgets.

"It would be fatal to our scheme if the Head of Department will

utilise the new set-up to reduce his own scrutiny and competence. For

example, one can imagine a Head of Department asking his deputy to

place before the Assistant Secretary in the Secretariat Cell and officers

of the Finance Cell a scheme which has not been technically considered

in full and is therefore defective, and then to remedy the defects only

when the scheme comes for consideration at his own level. A scheme

involving a different type of scrutiny or involving higher expenditure

must be approved by the Director himself (or another authorised officer

like Joint Director or Additional Director) before it is referred to the

Secretariat."

Thus Andhra Pradesh Administrative Reforms Commission

stressed for greater financial delegation to the department and financial

scrutiny within the departments by creating a finance cell and posting a

financial adviser in departments with large budgets.

The Administrative Reforms Department of Himachal Pradesh

in its study (1968, p, 133-138) suggested the following measures: -

(i) In the field of financial administration each administrative

department headed by a Secretary should have the powers of

"Head of Department" as defined in the Delegation of Financial

Powers Rules. More powers can also be delegated in specific

157
 cases if warranted by operational requirements, e.g. in the

case of purcliase of fertilisers to the Secretary, Agriculture

Department. Here specific proposals will need to be formulated

by the Secretary on his own initiative or by the Administrative

Reforms Department after a study of the nature and volume of

work for consideration by government,

(ii) Maximum possible delegations should be made to the

executive heads of departments to increase their

effectiveness. Since delegations are essentially a function of

the nature and volume of work, the precise proposals in this

behalf should ideally be worked out only after a thorough

examination of the nature, volume and variety of work

handled in the organisation concerned. This ideal is however

not an altogether practicable proposition for, besides involving

a great deal of labour, it may lead to a different set of powers

to different departments which would lead to confusion. For

the sake of convenience a categorisation already exists of

heads of departments. Thus, there Is one category, enjoying

powers of "Head of Department: under the Delegation of

Financial Powers Rules, and another exercising powers on an

ad hoc basis. Basically sound, this system could be further

rationalised, both to introduce better system and to give more

powers to departments in the second category mentioned

above. Thus executive heads may be classified Into three

158
 categories on the basis mainly of the quantum of budget and

the staff strength controlled by them - 'major' heads of

departments (like Chief Engineer, PWD, and Chief Conservator

of Forests), 'medium' heads of departments (like Director of

Agriculture) and 'minor' heads of departments (like Director of

Animal Husbandry).

(iii) Normally, the powers to be delegated to an executive head

should not exceed those of "Head of Department" under the

Delegation of Financial Powers Rules. This, however, should

not preclude an arrangement in which an executive head may

be given full powers of "Head of Department" in certain

matters intimately connected with the field operations and

lower powers in certain others (e.g. creation of posts) so that

effective control in crucial areas is lodged with the

administrative secretaries. Since, the financial powers of the

administrative department can also be exercised by the

executive head in consultation with the Secretary's staff

officers (finance and personnel) In actual practice no difficulty

is likely to be caused, nor speed hampered, by putting into

effect the arrangements visualised.

(iv) Supervision should follow well-defined hierarchical principle

and delegations should be matched to these principles. The

aim here should be to work out the maximum workable

159
 delegations for officers below the head of department down to

the field level.

In U.K., the executive agencies enjoy complete financial

autonomy within the budget provisions. In UK emphasis is on output

monitoring rather than input monitoring (i.e. rules of spending). Under

the Financial Management Initiative (1982) Government Departments

were given responsibilities for managing their own budgets. Output

was measured. In Canada greater powers have been delegated to

departments through the establishment of operating budgets and

increased fiscal year end flexibility (Fifth Central Pay Commission,

1971, p, 85).

In Punjab, financial powers have been delegated to HODs

(Head of Departments) under Punjab Finance Rules. Moreover

department of Finance, Government of Punjab vide its office order

dated 17*^ May, 2000 has issued detailed instructions for management

of government expenditure. As per that instructions HOD should make

the quarterly allocation of expenditure under S.O.E. (Standard object of

expenditure) to various DDOs (Drawing and Disbursing Officers).

Within that allocation DDOs would be free to make expenditure without

referring the matter to the government/F.D.

In Himachal Pradesh the financial delegation to various HODs

have been made under the Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971.

The Finance Department has further increased the delegations vide its

order issued on 6.9.1995. In Education Department, the Director of

160
Education has further made the delegation to Joint Director, District

Education Officers, Principals and Headmasters vide its office order

dated 8^*^ January, 1996. These powers pertain to various office

contingencies and motor vehicle expenditures. However, at the same

time the Standing Order of Department of Education prescribes limits

on expenditure sanction and approval required from Minister/Secretary.

Similarly the standing order issued by Commissloner-cum-

Secretary (Rural Development) dated IS**^ August, 1998 prescribe the

power to issue sanction at various levels under various Heads. These

include contingent sanctions, works including repairs, sanctions, works

including repairs, sanctions of expenditure out of funds of Rural

Development Department etc.

Thus the officers of both the departments have to work within

the. budget provisions and could spend only after obtaining expenditure

sanction from the competent authority. This delays the implementation

of various programmes framed by the government.

The present researcher feels that there should be complete

delegation of financial powers to the Director/Secretary within the

budget allotted and they should further delegate these powers to their

field officers to reduce unnecessary correspondence and delays. To

scrutinise the proposal of the departments. Finance Department should

appoint a Financial Adviser in every department as has been suggested

by Andhra Pradesh Administrative Reforms Commission. I^oreover to

handle ways and means position. Finance Department could direct

161
various departments to issue quarterly allocations to DDOs on the

pattern of Punjab.

3.3.e Supervision and Control

To improve the supervision and control, the Andhra Pradesh

Administrative Reforms Commission (1965, p, 30) suggested that:

"To derive the maximum benefit from the scheme suggested

by us, it would be necessary to locate the offices of the Secretariat and

the offices of the Heads of Departments concerned close to each other

so that the easy movement of files and personal discussions may be

facilitated between the Secretariat and the Heads of Departments."

In U.K. the supervision and control is exercised on executive

agencies by having a performance agreement between the Secretary of

the State and CEO of the executive agency. The performance

agreement prescribes the key performance target and output and

outcome expected from the agency. Moreover service charter (Citizen's

Charter) have been launched prescribing standard of public services.

The executive agencies are expected to comply fully with the principle

of the citizen charter and the pay of the agency chief executive is

normally directly related to their agency's performance (HMSO, U.K

2000).

In the Rural Development Department the supervision and

control is exercised by having review meetings, resorting to

expenditure sanctions, prescribing various proformae to collect

162
information and conducting inspections. In tfie Department of

Education also tlie similar systems have been devised. The present

researcher has observed that Directors hardly find time to inspect their

field offices. Various reports and proformae collected by the

Directorates are not specific and performance oriented.

It is suggested that supervision and control in the Education

and Rural Development Departments should be based on key

performance indicators. Information of these indicators should be

collected by devising proper proformae and introducing Management

Information System. There should be regular review at the level of

HOD and inspection teams should be deputed in the field to ensure

proper implementation of government programmes and policies in the

field.

163