New Delhi, June 9 -- Recent fire incidents in Delhi, as well as other such occurrences, will soon be forgotten, and public attention will shift to another news story. Yet, even after such tragedies, try calling a municipal body and one is likely to keep getting transferred from DE to AE, to JE, to Executive Engineer, and so on. Then there will invariably be a long lunch break, tea break, holiday, leave, weekend, or some other reason for inaction. Of course, one must not forget the challenge of finding official phone numbers that have not worked for years. Citizens are often left navigating outdated contact details, unanswered calls, and a maze of red tape and delays, reflecting a serious lack of accountability and responsiveness in the system. In many cases, people spend days trying to get a simple grievance addressed, only to encounter bureaucratic hurdles at every step.
Instances of non-responsiveness must be dealt with severely to create a strong deterrent and ensure accountability at all levels. If doctors can face consequences for negligence in treating patients, hospitals can be penalised for lapses, courts can point out shortcomings in the legal system, and top government officials can be publicly criticised, roasted, and trolled ruthlessly, why do errant executives of departments directly handling such issues often escape accountability? There appears to be an institutional reluctance to fix responsibility where it is most urgently required, and this culture of impunity must end.
The need of the hour is continuous monitoring and strict implementation. Complaint details should be made publicly available on official websites, along with real-time complaint status updates. Records of unanswered calls, pending complaints, response times, and action taken should also be transparently displayed on official portals. Such measures would enhance accountability, improve responsiveness, and act as a deterrent against non-performance. Unless this issue is addressed and cured, such incidents will continue to occur. Of course, the impact of any corrective action should not fall on the poor or vulnerable sections of society, but on the real culprits who fail to perform their duties despite being entrusted with public responsibility.
Most importantly, our legal framework contains several provisions, the judicious use of which can energise the administrative machinery, address inefficiency, and at times even serve as a deterrent against non-performance. Time-bound disciplinary action against officials who have slept over their duties or ignored mandatory checks for years is essential to ensure accountability and restore public confidence in the system. Apart from time-bound disciplinary action, the administration and courts, in a catena of judgments, have consistently emphasised the necessity of "chopping off dead wood" - that is, removing inefficiency from the system. One of the key provisions in this regard is Fundamental Rule 56(j), which empowers the government to order compulsory retirement in the public interest.
In Union of India vs. Santosh Kumar Tiwari (2024), the Supreme Court, inter alia, held that compulsory retirement is a well-accepted method of removing dead wood from the cadre without affecting an employee's entitlement to retirement benefits, if otherwise payable. To keep the force efficient, weeding out undesirable elements is essential and is a facet of administrative control, the Apex Court observed. The objective is to cure lethargy within the system and maintain efficiency, initiative, and integrity within the service. Such actions are often invoked in the public interest to eliminate inefficiency and safeguard institutional standards. They also aim to dispense with the services of those whose integrity is in doubt, thereby upholding purity, accountability, and public confidence in administration.
The recent fire incident calls for stricter disciplinary action against those who remained inactive and failed to discharge their responsibilities diligently. It also warrants a comprehensive review of the role and conduct of all those involved over the years, so that accountability is fixed, systemic lapses are not repeated, and a strong deterrent is created. If the role of each individual is thoroughly examined through a detailed enquiry, including any repeated instances of non-performance, negligence, collusion, misconduct, or irregularities committed not just recently but over several years, it would serve as a powerful warning to others in the future. It would reinforce the principle that officials cannot escape accountability merely by being transferred or reassigned, and that wrongdoing will be investigated and acted upon regardless of the passage of time. At the same time, innocent officials should not be punished or made scapegoats for failures attributable to others.
A robust legal framework is required to clearly provide that investigations and disciplinary proceedings may be initiated and continued irrespective of whether the concerned official remains posted in the department or has since been transferred, retired, or moved elsewhere. Public officials must remain answerable for their acts of commission and omission. Officials should also be under a continuing statutory obligation to maintain proper records of inspections, observations, and actions taken whenever irregularities come to their notice. Where no action is taken despite awareness of violations, the reasons for such inaction should be recorded in writing and preserved for future scrutiny. This would promote transparency, facilitate accountability, and allow us to address responsibility later if needed.
A strong, transparent administrative framework with accountability, continuous monitoring, and effective implementation is the solution. Only when responsibility is fixed, records are maintained, and inaction carries real consequences will public institutions become more responsive and capable of preventing tragedies that continue to claim lives despite repeated warnings and lessons from the past.
Views expressed are personal. The writer is a practising Advocate in the Supreme Court and High Court of Delhi
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.