page 1 of 33 panchayat and bureaucracy srimanta …page 1 of 33 1 panchayat and bureaucracy srimanta...

of 33

1

Panchayat and Bureaucracy

Srimanta Sen and Supriya Ghoshal

1. Nashibpur District with its Headquarters at Sirajnagar, located almost in the middle

of West Bengal, is a very important District of the State. During the early eighties due

to emergence of the new Panchayat system following the panchayat elections of 1978

the relationship between government officials and elected representatives at the

cutting edge levels was deteriorating in all the districts of the state. Nashibpur was no

exception. After the second panchayat elections in 1983 this relationship was further

strained and in many cases ended up in assault of the government officers by the

Panchayat functionaries and their allies and their resultant transfer. In Nashibpur

during 1982-83 there were 11 such incidents and in all cases either the Block

Development Officer (BDO), or the Junior Land Reforms Officer (JLRO) or the

Agriculture Extension Officer (AEO) were the victims. Because of their posting in

remote areas they were becoming soft targets whenever they came in the way of

corrupt practices or tried to implement the declared policy of the Central and State

governments impartially. Since the introduction of the community development

programme in the late 1950s the nature of work at the block level had undergone a

sea-change. Under the Community Development Programme, developmental work

was related mostly to agricultural extension as the focus of the first five year plan was

on food security. After the establishment of the three-tier Panchayat-system

multifarious developmental work came under the purview of the Block and resultantly

the volume of work increased considerably.

2. Ramnagar Block, situated in the eastern side of the river Ganges, is about 42 kms

from the district headquarters Sirajnagar. A great portion of Ramnagar Block is very

fertile due to regular deposition of alluvium by the river Bhagirathi. Rice, jute, wheat

and pulses are the main crops of the area. Smuggling is a constant problem.

3. After the second Panchayat election in May, 1983, the Ramnagar Panchayat Samiti

was formed by the ruling left parties. Five Gram Panchayats (GP) out of nine

belonged to the ruling parties and the remaining four to the Congress. Since the

Panchayat election just got over and many new persons were inducted into the system,

there was much enthusiasm in the work of Panchayat sector.

of 33

2

4. The BDO was a direct recruit of the 1979 batch of the State Civil Service posted as

a probationer in the district of Rajnagar. His predecessor was transferred by police

wireless radiogram and he as new BDO joined thereafter in June 1981. The BDO

worked hard and maintained good relations with all concerned. The District

Magistrate took charge of Nashibpur in September 1983. He belonged to the 1971

batch of the IAS and had returned after six years of service in the Government of

India on deputation.

5.An allotment of 800 units of Wheat mini-kits (seeds for sowing) were received in

Ramangar Block from the Principal Agricultural Officer (PAO), Nashibpur, under his

order dated 25-10-1983 for the winter season for distribution among the marginal and

poor farmers of the block. A meeting of the Krishi-Sech-o-Samabay Sthayee Samiti

(KSSS, standing committee on agriculture, irrigation and cooperation) of Ramanagar

Panchayat Samiti (see appendix – I) was convened on 9-11-1983 for taking a

resolution on distribution of these mini-kits. In the meeting, which the BDO could not

attend on account of some urgent official work at district headquarters, 800 mini kits

were sub-allotted to the 9 GPs and it was resolved that the Karmadhyaksha (chairman

of the concerned Standing committee) of that Sthayee Samiti would prepare the

beneficiary lists in respect of all the 9 GPs, including the 4 GPs under the Congress

party, and the Sabhapati (Chairman) of the PS would approve the lists. The Pradhans

of GPs would have no role in the process. According to prevailing norms, the Sthayee

Samiti in its meeting was to sub-allot the mini kits to all the GPs and the concerned

Pradhans in the meetings of the GPs would prepare and approve the Beneficiary Lists

and place these in the meeting of the KSSS for approval after threadbare discussion.

6. Coming to know of this unique resolution, the BDO after a day or two took up the

matter with the Sabhapati, Panchayat Samiti (PS) and tried to persuade him not to

follow this resolution as this would encroach the democratic rights of the GPs. The

Sabhapati turned a deaf ear. The BDO immediately took up the matter with the DM

who, on the basis of the resolution of the meeting of the District Co-ordination

Committee (DCC) held on 09/11/1983 at Sirajnagar Circuit House, issued orders on

18-11-1983 on how to distribute mini-kits. On the same day, the BDO sent a note to

the Sabhapati for arranging distribution of wheat mini-kits according to the orders of

the DM. The Sabhapati refused to accept it and used filthy language in respect of the

BDO and the DM.

of 33

3

7. In the meantime the Director of Agriculture issued a circular to the district

authorities making it mandatory that the distribution of minikits be done by the

Panchayat Samitis. The Panchayat Samitis were asked to prepare lists through KSSS.

However, in this circular the process of preparation of the list by the KSSS was not

mentioned. In many instances it was seen that the Panchayat Samitis prepared the list

arbitrarily on their on keeping the GPs, especially those belonging to other political

parties, in dark.

In the meeting of the District Coordination Committee (DCC) [set up under Chief

Secretary’s order] held on 9.11.83, a question was raised by an MLA regarding the

modalities of distribution of wheat mini-kits by the Panchayat Samitis. In reply the

Principal Agricultural Officer (PAO) stated that according to the circular, issued by

the Director of Agriculture, the list of beneficiaries would be prepared and finalised

by the PS and in case the PS failed to finalise it, the list would be prepared by the

ADO (erstwhile AEO). The Sabhadhipati of the Zilla Parishad (ZP) held a different

opinion and stated that the GPs in this matter should not be ignored. The GPs are

organic limbs of the Panchayat Samitis and should prepare the basic list according to

the sub-allotments by the Panchayat samitis through the concerned Sthayee Samiti.

The Sthayee Samitis concerned were to approve the list unless there was serious

material objection sustained on enquiries by competent officers like AEO. This view

was unanimously accepted and resolved in the meeting. (See appendix-IV)

8. It was in pursuance of these decisions of the DCC in which the MPs & MLAs were

also present that these guidelines were issued by the DM in consultation of the

Sabhadhipati of the ZP. The order issued by the DM was aimed at further

decentralisation and was based on the earlier resolution taken in the meeting of the

DCC.

9. On 21-11-1983 the BDO discussed the matter with the Karmadhyaksha, KSSS,

apprised him of the guideline issued by the DM and requested him to follow it in toto

in the interest of equity and fairness. The Karmadhyaksha was unwilling to do so.

10. The BDO met the DM on 30-11-1983 and apprised him of the situation. The DM

advised him to send a fresh note to both the Sabhapati and the Karmadhyakasha with

a request to place the matter before the Sthayee Samiti by 6-12-1983 in view of the

advent of the sowing season of wheat.

of 33

4

11. On 1-12-1983, the BDO accordingly sent a fresh note to the Sabhapati and the

Karmadhyaksha, which they furiously refused to accept. After returning from the

State Bank of India, Rasulpur, which was the Sub-Divisional Headquarters, after

encashment of salaries of the Block officials on 1-12-1983, the BDO called over the

Agriculture Extension Officer (AEO) to discuss the next course of action for

distribution of the mini-kits in view of the advent of the sowing season for wheat.

12.While discussion was going on, at about 3 PM about 150 persons, mainly of

nearest Ramnagar GP, gathered at the Block compound led by the Sabhapati of the PS

and the ex-Sahakari Sabhapati (former Vice Chairman) of the Panchayat Samiti and

the Chowkidar of the Zilla Parishad Dak Bungalow at Ramnagar. They uttered

slogans against the so-called non-co-operation of the BDO and the DM in the

distribution of wheat mini-kits. They even shouted slogans with filthy abuse:

“Amra DM-er ei chotha manchhi na, manbo na. Amader talika anujayee gom

minikit ditey hobey. Naile oi gom DM-O-BDO-r pachhaye pora hobey. BDO-r

kalo hat bhenge dao, gunriye dao.”

[We do not accept the scrap of paper from the DM. Wheat minikit must be

given as per our list. Otherwise that wheat will be shoved into the rear of the

DM and the BDO. Break, grind the BDO’s black Hand.]

13.The Sabhapati, the ex-Sahakari Sabhapati and the Chowkidar provoked the mob

and directed an attack on the BDO and the AEO. Thereafter, the three along with

some of the followers entered the office chamber of the BDO and demanded

distribution of wheat mini-kits in pursuance of the unique resolution of the KSSS. The

BDO expressed his inability in view of the guideline issued by the DM and requested

them to abide by the DM’s order for the sake of equity and fairness. They paid no

heed, went on shouting slogans as above and stuck to their demand. The three went on

abusing the officers, hindering the administrative work and gheraoed the BDO and

AEO. Suddenly, at the instigation of the Sabhapati, the ex-Sahakari Sabhapati and the

Chowkidar, the mob began to assault the AEO and the BDO physically. One follower

hit the AEO on his back. The AEO fell down on the table. The BDO was heckled and

physically assaulted by the mob being provoked by the three. The BDO along with

the AEO was forced to sign the distribution list prepared by the Sabhapati, PS, and

under duress. (see- appendix-V, FIR of the BDO)

of 33

5

14. After this, they dispersed shouting the same slogans. The BDO and the AEO were

traumatic after the incident. They were physically hurt, mentally bruised and felt

unwell. In the meantime, evening was drawing near and gradually the darkness fell.

15. On 2-12-1983, the BDO and the AEO went to the Sub-divisional Headquarters at

Rasulpur. The SDO, a 1970 batch West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) [WBCS

(Executive)] cadre officer, was out of Headquarters. The BDO spoke to the DM over

phone from Rasulpur. The DM sent the District Panchayat Officer (DPO) and a F.I.R.

was drafted. The BDO and the DPO went to Ramnagar Thana and lodged the FIR.

There was no action by the Officer –in- Charge (O.C.) to arrest the persons named in

the FIR. In view of this, the DPO informed the DM the situation and the same night

the DM and the SP (a West Bengal Police Service cadre officer promoted to the

Indian Police Service) came to Ramnagar Thana.

16.The DM asked the SP to immediately arrest the persons named in the FIR. The

police officers rushed out and came back with the Sabhapati first. The SP accused the

Sabhapati of assaulting the BDO and the AEO, obstructing the discharge of duty by

government servants and abusing the DM and the BDO in filthy language. The

Sabhapati denied the charges. The BDO confirmed that he was the very person who

along with the ex-Sahakari Sabhapati and the Chowkidar instigated their followers to

assault the BDO and the AEO physically and uttered such filthy language. The

Sabhapati was then arrested. Then, one by one, the other two were brought in and

arrested in the presence of the DM and the SP.

17. The arrest of a leading Panchayat functionary like the Sabhapati and a local leader

who was a whole-timer of the ruling party & the ex-Sahakari Sabhapati caused a great

commotion. The arrested persons were produced in the court at Rasulpur the next day

but they refused to take bail as a tactics of creating pressure on the administration and

drawing sympathy from the public in general. Different measures for showing protest

were taken. One of these measures was a call for Ramnagar Thana Bundh on 6-12-

1983.

18. In view of the commotion, measures for maintenance of peace and tranquillity

were taken by the administration. Appropriate number of police personnel was

stationed under an Executive Magistrate to combat the situation. The Bundh activists

became unruly and looted shops mainly owned by Congress supporters at different

of 33

6

places including Shaikhpara. During the reckless loot, some persons sustained injury.

In spite of their best efforts the magistrate and police could not prevent the happening.

19. The Sabhapati and the Sahakar- Sabhapati finally accepted bail just before this

incident. The ex-Sahakari Sabhapati was suspended from service as a school teacher,

as he was in police custody for over 48 hours.

20. It may be noted here that from March 1982 to December 1983 11 BDOs and

AEOs in Nashibpur district were assaulted on duty. All the major political parties

were involved and because of the greater number of the ruling party people, most of

the assault was from their end.

21. Both the service associations of WBCS officers made deputations to every DM

and Sabhadhipati in the State. The WBCS Association also met the Minister for

Panchayats and Land Reforms, who was the second man in the cabinet, to express

their grievances over the issue and demanded justice.

22. The Secretary of the WBCS (Executive) Association wrote a letter to the Chief

Secretary. In this he said “Nobody is willing to work as a BDO in the district.… If

‘BDO bashing’ turns out to be the latest political pastime, and the Government does

not take any preventive measures, the Administration will be a mockery.”

23. The BDO received information through his reliable source that a meeting had

been held at Ramnagar Dak Bungalow under the leadership of the Chowkidar who

was a local leader and a terror. It had been conspired that they would attack the BDO

on his way back to his Sultanpur residence in the evening with bombs, ingredients for

which were already in their possession.

24. The BDO informed the DM and the SP and the latter ordered the Circle Inspector,

Paranpur (Ramnagar thana was under his jurisdiction), to arrest the criminals with the

arms and ammunition which were reportedly in their possession and keep the

miscreants under close surveillance. As a result of the drive, some ingredients of

bombs were recovered from them and legal action was initiated.

25.In spite of the incident of assault, the BDO tried to remain cool and carried on the

day-to-day and the developmental works of the Block. Ramnagar Panchayat Samiti

called a meeting on 17-1-1984 to move a resolution against the BDO. The agenda

included the following:-

of 33

7

1. That the BDO tampered with papers relating to relief during the last

flood and acted against the decision of the Sabhapati and thereby

resorted to malpractices.

2. That the BDO by distributing wheat Mini-kits amongst the farmers in

his administrative capacity at a belated period in collaboration with the

AEO did harm to wheat cultivation in the Block and violated the

decision of the concerned Sthayee Samiti.

3. That the BDO caused the arrest of the Sabhapati, the ex-Sahakari

Sabhapati of the Panchayat Samiti and the Chowkidar of ZP Dak

Bungalow on the basis of false case.

4. That accordingly, let the BDO be recalled by the Government as per

provisions of the Section 119(1) of The W.B. Panchayat Act, 1973 (see

Appendix- II)

Regarding item no 1 of the Agenda, the BDO’s point was that he tampered

with no documents and did not resort to any malpractice while distributing relief to

the affected persons in the last flood. Only modified arrangements to some extent

were done on emergency basis in view of the fact that the number of affected persons

taking shelter in the relief camps was more than expected. This was done purely on

administrative grounds to tackle the emergency in the interest of public service.

Regarding item no 2, the BDO’s point was that as the Panchayat functionaries

failed to distribute wheat mini-kits among the poor and marginal farmers of the Block

as per the DM’s guideline, the BDO arranged to distribute these departmentally

through administrative personnel like Krishi Prajukti Sahayak (KPS) etc. with the

active cooperation of the AEO on the basis of departmental data, as the sowing season

for wheat had already set in.

26. After-effects of the Notice:

a) From Panchayat Samiti Members: Most of the members of the Panchayat

Samiti, including Pradhans belonging to ruling party, contacted the BDO and

stated that he had done no wrong and accordingly they were with him. They

also assured him that they would remain absent on 17-1-1984 and hence the

recall resolution would not be passed.

b) From the WBCS Officers and the AEO: It was decided in the meeting of the

WBCS Association that if the BDO of Ramnagar was removed on recall by

the Government on the basis of the resolution, no BDO would join at

of 33

8

Ramnagar Block. In addition, SATSA (the State Agricultural and

Technologists Association) joined hands with WBCS Association and both the

associations jointly warned that if such a trend of assaults on BDOs and AEOs

continued, they would be compelled to go on strike. Their feelings were

ventilated also to the Minister for Panchayats.

27. At the given time the BDO with the Extension Officer (Panchayat) [EO(P)] (see

Appendix- I) attended the meeting. There was full participation by members

belonging to the Congress party, but members from the ruling party side were very

few. There was a quorum, but the Sabhapati sensed the trouble ahead and in spite of

the quorum postponed the meeting on “indispensable grounds”. The BDO recorded

his note of dissent that in spite of there being a quorum, the meeting was postponed

without showing any cogent reason.

28. Notice was issued fixing the date for holding the postponed meeting on 2-2-1984.

This time the party issued a whip on the members of the Panchayat Samiti belonging

to the ruling Front to attend the meeting positively. It also decided to keep all such

members at the ZP Dak Bungalow at Ramnagar on the night of 1-2-1984 so that none

could be absent on any excuse.

29. Most of the Panchayat Samiti members belonging to the ruling party contacted the

BDO, expressed their helplessness this time in view of the whip, and requested the

BDO to fight on his own.

30. As per decision of the party, almost all the Panchayat Samiti members belonging

to the ruling party stayed the night at the Dak Bungalow at Ramnagar. They came to

the Panchayat Samiti meeting hall in a procession led by the MP with the MLA at the

tail, shouting the slogans as already mentioned. In all 33 members, of which 19 were

from the ruling party and 14 from the Congress attended the meeting.

31.At the very beginning of the meeting, the Sabhapati took out a paper from his

pocket, read out the agenda and requested the members to raise their hands in support

of the decision. Members belonging to the Congress demanded threadbare discussion

on the every item of the agenda. The Sabhapati referred to agenda no. 3 that the BDO

caused the arrest of the Sabhapati, the ex-Sahakari Sabhapati of the Panchayat Samiti

and the Chowkidar of ZP Dak Bungalow on the basis of a false case. Then the

Sabhapati again requested members to raise their hands in support of the decision of

recalling the BDO by the Government.

of 33

9

32. At this BDO submitted that he had to say something on his part. The MP, who is

an ex-officio member of the Panchayat Samiti (see appendix- I) argued that it was a

meeting of the Panchayat Samiti and as an Executive Officer the BDO had nothing to

do but to act upon the decisions taken by them. The MP further stated that BDO was,

therefore, not allowed to say anything in the meeting and if he desired to submit

something, he would have to show the relevant provisions of law, if any.

BDO then and there consulted the WB Panchayat Act, 1973 and drew the

attention of the meeting to section 108 which ran, “The Block Development Officer

shall attend meetings of the Panchayat Samiti and shall participate in the deliberations

thereof”.

At this, the members belonging to the Congress submitted that the MP was also an

advocate and naturally knew the law well. They claimed that the MP, fully knowing

what the law actually was, wanted to get wrong decisions passed against the BDO by

not letting him speak. They said that this was tantamount to an insult to the House and

as such he would have to beg pardon of the House. Having no alternative, the MP

apologised to the House. The BDO refuted all the allegations levelled against him.

Then the Sabhapati again requested members to raise their hands in support of the

decision and the 19 members belonging to the ruling party raised their hands while 14

members belonging to Congress went against the decision. They recorded a note of

dissent that all the allegations were bogus and all the agenda items were not discussed

at all. The BDO also recorded his note of dissent as to how the decision was taken

without discussion of all the agenda items.

33. The MP recorded his note of dissent on a remark passed by the BDO during the

discussion that the majority does not always speak the truth. The BDO had pointed

out in the meeting how only a few like Raja Rammohan Roy and Lord William

Bentinck realised the bad consequences of Suttee system, while most of the people

took it as sacred and beneficial to society.

34.The BDO was requested by the House to send a copy of the resolution to the Chief

Minister, the Minister –in-charge (MIC), Panchayat and others for immediate

implementation of the proposal. Some copies of the resolution were made ready and

that very evening BDO met the DM who sent a copy to the Chief Secretary forthwith

along with a report on how the resolution was adopted. Other copies were forwarded

to the intended persons in due course.

of 33

10

35. SDO Rasulpur was directed by the DM to carry out a thorough enquiry into the

incident of assault on the BDO and the AEO and was also requested to find out the

facts of the allegation made against the BDO by the Panchayat Samiti. Accordingly

the enquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 15.1.1984. As many as 21

persons were interrogated who witnessed the incident. Among the persons

interrogated were the Sabhapati and other Panchayat functionaries, the BDO, AEO

and 12 members of the staff of the Block and Panchayat Samiti office. As per the

report, the presence of the Sabhapati, the ex-Sahakari-Sabhapati and the Chowkidar

and their taking leading part in the incident was established. As regards the allegation

against the BDO for malpractice in distribution of relief material, the SDO did not

find any anything nor did he come across alteration or tampering in the office record

after thorough checking. Other charges against the BDO brought by the Panchayat

Samiti were also found to be unsubstantiated.

36.The resolution for recalling the BDO got immense publicity in dailies and

periodicals at the State and District levels, being the first such instance in the state.

State level dailies like Ananda Bazar Patrika, The Statesman etc. gave wide publicity

to the incident of assault on the BDO and the AEO and to the resolution. In addition

to the news, editorials were also published supporting the officers assaulted. It was

speculated that if similarly under section 166(1) of the WB Panchayat Act 1973 a

resolution recalling the Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad (the DM) were adopted

by the Zilla Parishad, whether an administrative impasse would result or not.

37.The MP sent a rejoinder to the news item published in “Jugantar” newspaper on

9.2.1984. This rejoinder was published on 25.2.1984 (a translated copy of this letter is

given in appendix – IV). In this he alleged that the conduct of the BDO was against

the laid down policy of the government and the BDO had flouted the law. He also

spoke in favour of the dismissal of the BDO from government service and implicitly

threatened the DM with transfer if he tried to support the conduct of the BDO.

38.The WBCS Association held a meeting on 8-2-1984 and reviewed the situation

arising out of the adoption of the resolution. It requested the Government not to act

upon the resolution on the basis of the apprehended administrative crisis. SATSA

adopted the same line. In every district there was commotion. The General Secretary

of the WBCS Association told a staff reporter of the Bengali daily ‘Anandabazar

Patrika’ that, on behalf of the Nashibpur unit of the Association, it was made clear to

the DM that if the BDO, Ramnagar was transferred, all the BDOs of the district would

of 33

11

go on leave for an indefinite period. This was published in that newspaper on

10.2.1984.

39. On 22-2-1984 the Minister for Panchayats, Rural Development and Land Reforms

came to Sirajnagar and met the DM, the SP and the Sabhadhipati (Chairman) of the

Zilla Parishad (ZP) to review the situation. He proposed that the administration should

withdraw the criminal case and then the matter of retention of the BDO at Ramnagar

would be looked into. Both the DM and the SP declined and advised that it would be

better for the resolution to be withdrawn by the PS first and then the BDO could be

shifted. The Sabhadhipati stated this was impossible. The DM then stated that if the

BDO was transferred, the government should transfer the DM and the SP as well. The

Minister told the Sabhadhipati in English, “Where there is a will, there is a way”. In

view of the stand taken by the DM and the SP, the Government refrained from acting

upon the resolution. The Minister held a closed door meeting with the DM, the

Sabhadhipati and the Minister of State for Primary Education (who was from

Nashibpur district) in which he stressed the need for restoring normal relationship

between the panchayat functionaries and the government officials. The DM pointed

out that the resolution of the Ramnagar Panchayat Samiti was a major impediment in

the effort. The Minister told the Sabhadhipati that it was his task to get the resolution

withdrawn.

40. There was an assembly question regarding the Ramnagar incident which also got

elaborate media coverage. Some of the widely circulated state level dailies wrote that

in reply to the Assembly question raised by an MLA, the MIC Panchayat and

Community Development admitted that the DM Nashibpur had flouted the

government order and added that all the DMs were asked not to interpret the

government orders and to consult the government in case of any complication. (See

Appendix-V and VII)

41. The Chief Minister summoned the Sabhapati later on and rebuked him, as

reported by the Sabhapati to the BDO, directed him not to repeat such an incident and

requested him to continue working with the BDO and the AEO.

42. In the meantime, the BDO was deeply involved in developmental work. He took

the initiative to hold IRDP camps [IRDP- Integrated Rural Development

Programme- a scheme for employment generation among the person living

below poverty line by utilising bank loan and Govt. subsidy. This was one of the

of 33

12

most important self-employment schemes during the 1980s and 1990s. Later it

turned into “inko rupiya denahi parega”] and joint inspections with the Sabhapati,

the AEO, other Extension officers and Bankers successfully. Even on the day after the

BDO gave evidence in Lalbag Court against the Sabhapati, he went to the village of

the Sabhapati and held IRDP joint inspection with him. The court case went on in its

own motion and the BDO went on implementing different developmental

programmes for the betterment of the standard of life of the poor people. The BDO

continued in the same Block up to May 1987 after which he joined Govindapur

District Headquarters on general duty.

43. On 3rd

January 1984 a meeting was held at Zilla Parishad to discuss the policy of

distribution of mini-kits. In this meeting the DM, the Sabhadhipati, all the ADMs, the

Principal Agriculture Officer, all the BDOs and Sabhapatis of the district were

present. In this meeting, after long deliberations, finally the order framed earlier by

the DM formulating the guiding principles of distribution of mini-kits, on the basis of

the resolution adopted in DCC meeting, was unanimously accepted.

of 33

13

APPENDIX- I

PANCHAYAT ORGANISATIONAL CHART ZILA PARISHAD (Uppermost tier at the district level)

Functionaries

Official Peoples’ Representatives

Executive officer (District Magistrate- ex officio)

Additional Executive officer

Secretary (Also the secy of Artha Sthayee Samiti)

Deputy Secretary*

Additional Deputy Secretary**

Engineers

Office Superintendent

Other staff

Directly elected Ex-officio

Office bearers Other members

Sabhadhipati Sahakari-Sabhadhipati Karmadhyakshas of sthayee samitis

(Chairperson (Vice-Chairperson) (Chairpersons of standing committees)

#

and also the ex-officio

karmadhyaksha of

Artha Sthayee samiti)

*,** Posts created later (in 1990s)

# There are 10 Sthayee Samitis (Standing Committees) in the ZP viz. Artha sanstha

unnayan o parikalpana (Finance, Dvelopment & Planning), Krishi sech o samabay

(Agriculture), Purta karya o paribahan (Public works), Siksha samaskriti tathya o krira

(Education), Janaswasthya o Paribesh (Health), Nari o shishu unnayan janakalyan o

tran (Women and Child Development), Khudrashilpa vidyut o achiracharit shakti

(Small scale industries and energy) , Bon o bhumisamaskar (Land Reforms), Khadya

o sarabarah ( Food and Public Distribution). NB: Each Sthayee Samiti has several official members apart from the elected members. They are

generally drawn from the general administration (like District relief officer) or from the line

departments (like Chief Medical Officer etc.) having an official set up at the district level. One of the

official members acts as the Secretary of the Sthayee Samiti e.g. the Chief Medical Officer acts as the

secretary of Janaswasthya Sthayee Samiti. Only exception is the secretary of the ZP who is the ex-

officio secy of the Artha Sthayee Samiti.

MPs of the Constituencies falling

partly or fully within the District.

MLAs of the constituencies

falling within the District

Sabhapatis of all the

PS within the District

of 33

14

PANCHAYAT ORGANISATIONAL CHART PANCHAYAT SAMITI (Middle tier at the Block level)

Functionaries


Executive officer (Block development officer- ex officio)

Joint Executive Officer (Jt.Block development officer- ex officio)

Secretary (Extension officer for Panchayat – ex-officio)

Other staff

Directly elected members Ex-officio members


Sabhapati Sahakari-Sabhapati Karmadhyakshas of Sthayee samitis

(Chairperson (Vice-Chairperson) (Chairpersons of standing committees) #


Karmadhyakshas of

Artha Sthayee Samiti)

# There are 10 Sthayee Samitis in the PS viz. Artha sanstha unnayan o parikalpana,

Krishi sech o samabay, Purta karya o paribahan, Siksha samaskriti tathya o krira,

Janaswasthya o Paribesh, Nari o shishu unnayan janakalyan o tran, Khudrashilpa

vidyut o achiracharit shakti , Bon o bhumisamaskar, Khadya o sarabarah.

NB: Each Sthayee Samiti has several official members apart from the elected

members. They are generally extension officers of the Block or officers of the line

departments. One of them acts as the secretary of the Sthayee Samiti. But EO (P)

(now designated as PDO – Panchayat Development Officer) is the ex-officio

Secretary of the Panchayat Samiti.

MPs of the Constituency (ies)

having jurisdiction within the

Block

MLAs of the constituency (ies)

situated within the Block Prodhans of all the Gram

Panchayats within the

Block

Members of ZP from the Block area other than

Sabhadhipati

and Sahakari Sabhadhipati

of 33

15

PANCHAYAT ORGANISATIONAL CHART GRAM PANCHAYAT (Lowermost tier at the village level)

Functionaries


Executive Assistant

Secretary

Sahayak

Job-Assistant

Nirman sahayak

Gram Panchayat Karmee

Directly elected members Ex-officio members


Pradhan Upa-Pradhan Sanchalaks of the Upasamitis

(Chairperson (Vice-Chairperson) (Chairpersons of standing committees)

#


sanchalak of Artha upasamiti)

Members of Panchayat Samiti

elected from the GP area other

than the Sabhapati and Sahakari

Sabhapati.

# Each Gram Panchayat has 5 upasamitis viz. i)Artha o Parikalpana, ii) Shikaha o

Janaswastrhya, iii) Krishi o Prani Sampad Bikash, iv) Shilpa o Parikathamo Sthayee

Samiti, v) Nari oShishu Unnayan o samajkalyan. Each upasamiti is headed by one

elected member of the Gram Panchayat called ‘Sanchalak’. However, Pradhan of the

GP is the ex-officio sanchalak of Artha Upasamiti.

* Post created between 1998 to 2003.

of 33

16

APPENDIX –II (Provisions of the W.B. Panchayat Act, 1973)

a)Removal of the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti

Section 119(1) of the W.B. Panchayat Act, 1973 envisages:

“There shall be an Executive Officer for every Panchayat Samiti and the Block

Development Officer shall be the ex-officio Executive Officer:Provided that such

Block Development Officer shall be recalled by the State Government if a resolution

to that effect is passed by the Panchayat Samiti, at a meeting specially convened for

the purpose, by a majority of the total number of members holding office for the time

being.”

b) Punishment of a Zilla Parishad employee

Section 168(2) of the WB Panchayat Act states: “The Executive Officer may award any

punishment other than dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of an officer of the Zilla

Parishad.The Executive Officer may recommend the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank

of an officer or employee of a Zilla Parishad to the Artha Sanstha Unnayan O Parikalpna

Sthayee Samiti (Standing Committee for finance) and such Samiti shall forward the case to

the Zilla Parishad with its own recommendation. The Zilla Parishad may if it is satisfied with

such recommendation of the Artha Sanastha Unnayan O Parikalpna dismiss, remove or

reduce in rank of any such officer or employee.” Further as per Section 168(4): “No officer or

other employee shall be punished by the Zilla Parishad except by a resolution of a Zilla

Parishad passed at a meeting.”

APPENDIX –III (View of local newspaper)

All the state level dailies and also the local dailies and weeklies gave wide

publicity to the incident of assault on BDO. While almost all the newspapers decried

the incident and supported the role of the administration to handle the entire episode,

one of the local weeklies named “Mithekara” had a different view. In one of its issue

dated 26.12.1983 it had questioned the active Role of the DM. In its opinion there was

no need on the part of the DM and the SP to go to the Thana to cause arrest of the

Sabhapati of the Panchayat Samiti concerned. The correspondent retorted: since the

DM was in a Training Institute of IAS officers for a considerable period before being

posted as DM, he was isolated from the common people and because of this isolation

he was not careful enough to go through the files properly and to gather information

in a right manner.

It further pointed out that, keeping the question of decentralisation in sight;

this incident of violation of government order could be viewed as an endeavour of

of 33

17

capturing the power by the bureaucracy. It advised the DM to take similar action in

other such cases of alleged inaction on the part of the police to arrest the accused.

APPENDIX –IV

(Rejoinder by MP Published in “Jugantar” on 25.02.1984.

I was taken aback by the news item titled “New turn in manhandling of

officers in the Nashibpur District” (published in 9th

February issue). I was present at

the Panchayat Samiti meeting held on 2nd

February 1984 as MP along with the MLA

Mr “X”, wherein the proposal for removal of BDO Sri Y was raised and accepted.

The allegation against the BDO was that he had forged the resolution that had been

prepared on discussion with the Sabhapati and Sahakari Sabhapati for distribution of

relief. The BDO had admitted committing this act in the said meeting and that had

been recorded in the resolution of the meeting.

Though it was decided that the list of beneficiaries for distribution of whet

minikits will be prepared by the Karmadhyaksha concerned and would be approved

by the Sabhapati yet the BDO was alleged to have cancelled the list of Sabhapati and

distributed the minikits according to his personal will and that too after a considerable

delay and thereby caused irreparable damage to the farmers and also flouted the

Government order.

When the Sabhapati tried to prevent this act, the BDO implicated him in a

false case and got him arrested. When I was discussing over the proposal for removal

of BDO, then the BDO instigated the members of Congress party to stop me from

carrying on the discussion. This was also recorded in the resolution of the meeting.

Crossing his limit, the BDO shouted that he did not agree with the proposal taken

because the majority do not always speak the truth. This statement of BDO was also

recorded in the resolution of the meeting. Inclusion of a person in the Panchayat

system who has no regard for democracy results in jeopardising the said system.

In this regard, it may be mentioned that the BDO, as per news items published

on 9th

February, stated that he acted in accordance with the direction of D.M. If any

order is passed by the DM, which goes against the laid down principles of the

Government, then the intention of the DM should also be given a thought.

Finally, my appeal to the State Government is that the resolution of the

meeting of the Panchayat Samiti held on 2nd February should be called for and on the

of 33

18

basis of it, the BDO Sri ‘Y’ should not only be removed from the Panchayat Samiti

but also be dismissed form the service.

APPENDIX- V

(Letter of DM dated 16.03.1984 addressed to the Chief Secretary on news items

published on the issue of flouting of government order)

Sir,

I am to draw your kind attention to newspaper reports published on page 9 of

The Statesman dated 15.03.84 on page 3 of Amrita Bazar Patrika and page 6 of

Aajkaal, copies of which are enclosed.

2. It has been stated here if correctly reported that the MIC, Panchayat and C.D.

stated in the Assembly “that in Nashibpur certain complications had arisen because of

the personal interpretation of the Panchayat by the District Magistrate” (Statesman)

and that in the issues of mini-kits “the D.M. has flouted the Govt. order” (Amritabazar

Patrika).

3. I am to point that this is not the correct fact. The facts are that in the meeting of

the District Co-ordination committee ( set up under chief Secretary’s letter No. 2860-

PAR(IAS) /80-321/77 dated 14.10.77) held on 9.11.83 at 11 a.m. in Sirajnagar, Sri

‘J’, MLA, has raised certain queries regarding the modalities for distribution of wheat

mini-kits by Panchayat Samitis. It was the Sabhadhipati of Nashibpur Zilla Parishad

who categorically laid down certain guidelines. I am reproducing the relevant extract

from the proceedings:

Extracts from proceedings of the meeting of the District Co-ordination

Committee held on 9.11.83 at 11 a.m. in the Circuit House, Sirajnagar.

Invitees present :

1. MOS for Education.

2. Sabhadhipati, Nashibpur, Zilla Parishad.

3 to 9. 1 MP and 6 MLAs of the District.

Members present : 52 officers of Govt. departments.

Agriculture.

of 33

19

1. Shri ‘S’, PAO ( Principal Agriculture Officer) reported that enquiry report into the

allegation about distribution of mini-kits in Singhari village was received from

SAO(K). 56 mini-kits were allotted for Gadda G.P. The list prepared by the G.P. was

approved by the Panchayat Samiti after exclusion of 15 beneficiaries on various

grounds, which caused resentment amongst the G.P. functionaries. They refused to

distribute the minikits. Ultimately the AEO prepared a list and according to the list

minikits were distributed in conformity with the present guidelines of the Government

Order.

This was the back ground of alleged distribution.

1.1 In reply to a to a query by Shri ‘J’, MLA, PAO stated that according to

stipulations of the Govt. Order, the list of beneficiaries would be finalized by the

Panchayat Samity & in case, the Panchayat Samiti failed to finalise, the list would be

prepared by the ADO (Erstwhile AEO).

1.2 Sri ‘N’, Sabhadhipati, categorically stated that there is no scope to think that the

G.Ps. are ignored in distribution of Minikits. The GPs are organic limbs of a

Panchayat Samiti, shall prepare the basic list according to the sub-allotments by a

Panchayat Samiti through the concerned Sthayee Samiti. The Sthayee Samiti

concerned are to approve the list within the priorities of the list unless there is

serious material objections sustained on enquiries by competent officers i.e.

ADOs/AEOs.

3. ***** **** *****

4. It was in pursuance of these decisions of the District Coordination Committee, in

which the MOS, Education, 6 MLAs and one MP, were also present, that guidelines

were issued for distribution of the wheat minikits. There is nothing in these guidelines

which contravenes any provision of the West Bengal Panchayat Act.

5. I am also to point out that the Agriculture Secretary, Shri ‘P’ wrote to the

Commissioner Presidency Division, regarding distribution as follows in the demi-

official letter no. 631/Secy dated 17/12/1983 :

“Kindly refer to your D.O. letter No.367-RG(K) dated 13/12/1983 on the

subject of the distribution of minikits for the rabi season. I also feel that the D.M.

of 33

20

followed the best course by amplifying on the Govt. order with a procedure in

consultation with the Sabhadhipati and other Panchayat leaders, since there was no

time to be lost by reference to the Govt.”

6. In this connection I am to point out that as far back as 26.11.1983, I had written to

the Commissioner Presidency Division regarding a similar distortion of fact in report

published in Amrita Bazaar Patrika dated 15th

. November, 1983, stating that Shri ‘J’

MLA has complained to the Chief Minister that I had violated the Govt. orders on

distribution of minikits. I am enclosing a copy of the copy of my letter to the

commissioner, Presidency Division for ready reference.

7. I am to request that the Govt. place on record the correct fact as they stand. It is a

matter of regret incorrect fact have been in the Assembly (if the newspaper report is

correct) despite the entire matter being concord in detail in the Panchayat Department,

the Agriculture Department and with the Divisional Commissioner.

8. I am also to state that the complete facts of the case were reported by me in your

presence in the meeting held in the chamber of MIC, Panchayat and CD on 15th

.

December 1983 where it was shown time and again in black and white that it was the

Sabhadhipati of the Nashibpur Zilla Parishad who have proposed down those

guidelines with the concurrence of the MOS, Education, 6 MLAs ,1 MP and the

official members of the District coordination committee. The Panchayat Secretary, the

Agriculture secretary and the Member, Board of Revenue were also present in this

meeting in the chamber of the MIC. The District Magistrate has acted in pursuance of

this said decisions of the District Coordination Committee and had not by any means

ventured to make any “personal interpretation” of the Panchayat Act nor had he

flouted any Govt. order. On the other hand, his action has been fully sanctioned by the

Agriculture Secretary in his letter to the Commissioner of the Division, quoted in Para

5 above.

9. I shall be obliged if you kindly take up the matter with the appropriate authority for

removal of incorrect imputation about the District Magistrate, in the reported

statement of minister in the assembly.

Yours faithfully,

District Magistrate

Copy forwarded to Shri “C”, IAS Commissioner of the Division, for information and

necessary action.

District Magistrate

of 33

21

APPENDIX – VI

(The FIR of the BDO)

Government of West Bengal

Office of the Block Development Officer

Ramnagar

Dated 02/12/1983

To

The Officer-in-charge

Ramnagar Police Station

I like to draw your attention to the following facts for taking immediate measure

to prevent further deterioration of Law and Order in Block office premises.

On 1.12.83 at about 3-30 PM the AEO, Ramnagar came to my chamber on

request on my part for having a discussion on distribution of wheat minikits. When

we were discussing on this, the Sabhapati of this Panchayat Samiti (Mr. “A.B”), Mr.

“SCD” ( ex- Sahakari Sabhapati of this Panchayat Samiti) and Mr. “I”, chowkidar

Nashibpur Zilla Parishad Dak Bunglow at Ramnagar suddenly entered into my office

chamber with about 15 to 20 persons shouting for immediate distribution of wheat

minikits. At that time I saw a mob of about 500 people encircled the entire premises

and were shouting for immediate distribution of wheat minikits.

The manner of the distribution of the same as was demanded by the Sabhapati and

others, as said above, in contravention to the instruction and guidelines of the

appropriate authority, so both I and the AEO tried to convince the above persons not

to force us to take an illegal measure. All our efforts were in vain when the Sabhapati

cried out with uttering:

“DM – er chotha manina. gam diben kina bolen? Na hole oi gam AEO, BDO ar DM

–er pachhay pora hobe. Orei shudhu kathai hobe na --- pachhay achhola bansh dite

hobe, tabe sala-ra shaesta hobe.”

[“I do not accept the scrap of paper from the DM. State whether you would distribute

wheat or not? Otherwise that wheat will be shoved into the rear of the AEO, the BDO

and the DM. See, mere words will not suffice – unscrapped bamboo should be jostled

into their rear, then only these idiots will be tamed.”]

and also with filthy languages.

On hearing this, the ex- Sahakari Sabhapati, Shri “SCD” and the chowkidar “I”

began to instigate the assembled mob (headed by them) to attack and assault to fulfil

their demand on show of force. At this moment someone from the mob in my

chamber standing by the side of “I” attacked the AEO with closed-fisted blow on the

back side of the head, throat, and cheek and also tried to knock him down from his

chair.

On this sudden outburst, though I was also perplexed, I tried to resist and

ultimately finding no other alternative, I had go round to their illegal demand under

such compelling circumstances as still then the person named above were shouting – “

of 33

22

minikits na dile kono byatar rehai nei” [ “No one will be escaped if minikits are not

distributed”].

Under duress the AEO had to distribute the minikits as per their demands.

Being a Govt. servant the AEO had been assaulted when he was discharging his

official duties and the AEO and myself had been obstructed on wrongful confinement

from discharging our official function in the interest of the public service. By

applying criminal force the above named person forced us to do what was illegal

officially.

In view of what has been stated above, you are requested to take immediate

legal measures for this unlawful assembly headed by the persons above-named when

they deterred Govt. Officials from discharging their public functions as public

servants assaulting and applying criminal.

Please treat this as my FIR.

Sd/-

Block Development Officer

Ramnager.

Copy forwarded to the District Magistrate,Nashibpur,/ Sub-Divisional Officer

Rasulpur for kind information and necessary action.

Sd/-

Block Development Officer

Ramnager.

of 33

23

APPENDIX-VII

REPLIES TO THE STARRED ASSEMBLY QUESTION NO. 316

RAISED BY SRI “AAA” MLA

QUESTION REPLIES

a) Whether the State Govt. has any information about

the decision of Ramnagar Panchayat Samiti in Rasulpur

Sub-Division of Nashibpur District taken through a

resolution for removal of local BDO and the resultant

tension between the Administration and the Panchayat

functionaries of the district; and

a) Yes Ramnagar

Panchayat Samiti has

adopted a resolution

recalling the BDO and ex-

officio Executive Officer

of the said Panchayat

Samiti under proviso to

section 119(1) of the West

Bengal Panchayat Act,

1973.

b) If so,

i) What is the present position in the matter, and

b) i)The whole matter is

now under examination of

the Govt.

ii) The steps taken and / or contemplated by the State

Govt.

ii) Does not arise.

of 33

24

APPEMDIX – VIII

(Letter of DM dated 21.01.84 to the Secretary Panchayat and CD regarding the

procedure to be followed to suspend the Chowkidar, Ramnagar Staging Bungalow)

From: The District Magistrate

Nashibpur

To: The Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal

Panchayat and CD Department.

Subject: Suspension of Shri “I” Chowkidar Ramnagar staging Bungalow,

Nasibpur Zilla Parishad.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your radiogram No. 920/Panch dated 17th

January,

1984, on the above subject and to state that Shri “I”, Chowkidar of Ramnagar staging

Bungalow of Nashibpur Zilla Parishad, was arrested by the police for criminal

charges and continued in the jail custody for 67 hours continuously from 2nd

December, 1983 at 21-30 hrs to 5th

December, 1983 at 16-45 hours when he agreed to

accept the bail and was released. Shri “I” is in receipt of salary amounting to rupees

300/- per month and cannot therefore be punished by the Executive officer Zilla

Parishad u/s 168 of the Panchayat Act, 1973.

2 Government have now clarified in the radiogram under reference that the

employee is automatically treated as suspended. I am to seek instruction as to

who will issue the suspension orders and this can be done by the Secretary, Zilla

Parishad without the necessity of a formal meeting of the Zilla Parishad under

Section 168(2).

3 I am also to request instructions as to the time from when the suspension orders

are to take effect. In view of the normal course Government employees are

automatically deemed to be suspended if they have spent more than 48 hours in

police custody. It may kindly be clarified whether this applies to Zilla Parishad

employees in the instant case.

4 Since it will take considerable time for a formal meeting of entire Zilla Parishad

to be convened, it may please be clarified whether, in the mean time, suspension

of 33

25

can be issued from the Secretary, Zilla Parishad in view of the radiogram from

your end. This is important because the employee is continued to draw pay in full

which will be highly irregular after receipt of the instructions from your end. In

your radiogram no. 920-Panch dated 17.01.84.

5 In case Govt. feels that a formal meeting is a prerequisite to issue suspension

order, it may please be clarified what is to be done in case the Sabhadhipati does

not agree to convene a meeting on this issue. It is not clear from the Act who will

convene the meeting of the Zilla Parishad. This may also please be clarified. In

such a case, kindly instruct us whether the said employee should have paid his

full salary while he is deemed to be automatically under suspension although no

formal suspension orders have yet been issued.

Yours faithfully,

District Magistrate

Nashibpur

Copy forwarded with a copy of the radiogram of the Secy. Panchayat Deptt. to the

Commissioner of the Division, for information for kindly pursuing the matter with

the Panchayat Deptt.

District Magistrate

Nashibpur

of 33

26

Appendix –IX

(Instruction of the DM dated 07.12.1983 to all the SDOs to render special efforts to

make the Officer-Panchayat relationship smooth)

From: The District Magistrate

Nashibpur.

To: The SDO (all)

Incidents are coming to notice of problems of adjustment and occasional

misunderstanding between Govt. officials and elected representative at the Panchayat

level in order to ensure that development work proceeds smoothly and sanctioned

funds of Govt. are utilised effectively, it is necessary to resolve such disputes

amicably at the earliest opportunity.

Accordingly, I request you to keep close watch over your Block and L.R.

circles. The Sabhapatis and the concerned Govt. officials will approach you wherever

disputes cannot be resolved at their level amicably. You will take the initiative in

intervening promptly so that incidents are not blown-up out of proportion leading to

bitter feeling on either side.

The Sabhadhipati, Nashibpur Zilla Parishad is writing separately to all

Sabhapatis requesting them to approach the SDOs promptly wherever they have

problems of adjustment or alleged non-cooperation from the officials. Please advise

your BDOs and JLROs suitably.

It is reiterated that for the smooth functioning of the administration it is

imperative that the SDOs give the highest priority to resolving such disputes at the

earliest opportunity. Please keep me informed of the action taken from time to time.

District Magistrate

Nashibpur

Copy forwarded to:-

1. The Sabhadhipati, Nashibpur Zilla Parishad.

2. The Additional District Magistrate (General), Nasibpur.

3. The Additional District Magistrate (LR), Nasibpur.

District Magistrate

Nashibpur

of 33

27

LEARNING NOTES OF PANCHAYAT AND BUREAUCRACY (PART-I)(FINAL)

Parawise:

Para-1: o Emergence of new three tier Panchayat system –horizontal

hierarchy: each tier is unit of independent self government. o Deterioration of relationship between government officials and

Panchayat Raj functionaries resulting in victimization of government officers while discharging impartial duties.

o Misuse of power by the ruling party. o Government officers at remote areas are treated as soft targets. o Introduction of Community Development Programme : nature

and volume of work at Block level changes. Para-2:

o Strategic and socio-economic problem of the Block. Para-3:

o Political scenario at GP and PS level : distribution of political power almost at equal proportion.

Para-4: o Change of key officers at block and district level.

Para-5: o Ignoring the lower tier of democracy the resolution was taken in

KSSS which was contrary to the prevailing norms of distribution.

Para-6: o Persuasive role of BDO to restore democratic rights at lower tier

of Panchayat Raj Institution (PRI).

o Arrogance of Sabhapati to comply DM’s order : tension between political and executive bureaucracy.

Para-7: o Incomplete Government orders create confusion at field level :

lack of professionalism. o Misinterpretation of Government orders by PAO to please the

political boss.

o Upright and judicious role of Sabhadhipati. Para-8:

o DM’s order aimed at further decentralization taking all concerned into confidence.

Para-9: o Guiding role of BDO for maintenance of equity and fairness. o Arrogance of Karmadhyaksha: tension between political and

executive bureaucracy. Para-10: o Proper guidance by the DM

Para-11: o Analyzing and decisive power of BDO.

Para-12:

o Pressure tactics by political counterpart to realize unlawful gain. o Abuse of DM and BDO by filthy language.

of 33

28

Para-13:

o Physical assault on AEO & BDO instigated by political executives as ultimate tool of pressure tactics – temporary gain.

Para-14: o De-motivating effects of Physical assault.

Para-15:

o Prompt and responsive action by DM & SP. o Inaction of local OC. o Police- Magistrate relationship: good at top but bad at lower

level. o Importance of drafting of an FIR( sec. 154 of Cr.P.C): bad

drafting may lead to acquittal. Para-16:

o Obstructing and abusing the Public Servant- offence u/s 188 IPC.

o OC activated by SP. o Doubtful role of SDPO! o Arrest of a Sabhapati who belongs to the ruling party- unique

incidence. Para-17:

o Pressure tactics by political parties. Para-18:

o Failure of police intelligence: inadequate measures taken by the administration for maintenance of peace.

Para-19: o Suspension of Sahakari Sabhapati( School Teacher)- CCA Rules.

Para-21: o Solidarity of Service Cadre: ultimate sufferer is the public. o Government was forced to take proper action.

Para-22: o Pressure by the officer’s Association.

Para-23: o Information channel of BDO- saved his life.

Para-24: o Criminalization of politics. o DM & SP both responsive and sensitive. o Conspicuous absence of the middle tier administration- SDO &

SDPO. Para-25:

o Special meeting for removal of BDO: Section 119(1) of WB Panchayat Act, 1973.

o Detached involvement and professional competence of BDO- Nishkam Karma: enabled him to remain unperturbed, managing stress.

Para-26: o Support for integrity, righteousness and professional

competence. of BDO even against the political allegiance. o Professionalism and networking of BDO. o Inter and intra service solidarity amongst government officials.

of 33

29

Para-27: o Preconceived hidden agenda led to postponement of meeting in

spite of quorum: lack of transparency. Para-28:

o Anti-defection measures by the Ruling Party- questionable loyalty.

Para-29:

o Acceptability of BDO by all concerned and moral support. Para-30:

o Nil. Para-31:

o Role of opposition in democracy. Para-32:

o Knowledge is power( Section 108 of WB Panchayat Act, 1973.) o Power of informed citizenry( Right to Information). o Not to be over awed : basic quality of civil servant to uphold the

Constitutional provision for public good against all odds. Para-33:

o Leadership quality of BDO- it is always lonely at the top. o Ability to marshal information

Para-34: o Proactive role of DM realizing the highly critical nature of the

problem. Para-35:

o Impartial enquiry by SDO. o Truth triumphs ultimately.

Para-36: o Role of media- the fourth estate played a vital role in formation

of public opinion. Para-37:

o Twisting of facts by MP. Para-38:

o Active role of fellow feeling. Para-39:

o Firm and unrelenting attitude of district officials made the political executives bow down.

o MIC’s maturity vis-à-vis immaturity of local level politician. Para-40:

o Reportedly wrong statement by the MIC in the floor of Assembly. o Has the DM violated Government Order? o Face saving of the government by MIC.

Para-41:

o Professional and strategic move by DM to inform Chief Secretary so that he in turn conveys it to CM.

o Realistic role of CM. Para-42:

o BDO- a Public Servant in the true sense of it.

of 33

30

o Inspired leadership of BDO motivated others- professionalism at its best: not allowing personal assault to intrude into his professional work.

o Ability to demarcate between different paths of action- Law & Development.

Para-43: o Proactive role of District Authority made the distribution policy

transparent and just.( Para-43)

Issue wise:

Political & social scenario: o Emergence of new three tier Panchayat system –horizontal

hierarchy: each tier is unit of independent self government. (Para-1)

o Physical assault on AEO & BDO instigated by political executives as ultimate tool of pressure tactics – temporary gain.( Para-13)

o Pressure tactics by political parties.( Para-17)

o Strategic and socio-economic problem of the Block.( Para-2) o Criminalization of politics. (Para-24) o MIC’s maturity vis-à-vis immaturity of local level politician.(

Para-39) Democratic values.

o Political scenario at GP and PS level : distribution of political power almost at equal proportion.( Para-3)

o Support for integrity, righteousness and professional competence. of BDO even against the political allegiance.( Para-26)

o Anti-defection measures by the Ruling Party- questionable loyalty.( Para-28)

o Role of opposition in democracy.( Para-31) o Power of informed citizenry( Right to Information).( Para-32) o Not to be over awed : basic quality of civil servant to uphold the

Constitutional provision for public good against all odds.( Para-32)

o Role of media- the fourth estate played a vital role in formation of public opinion.( Para-36)

o Reportedly wrong statement by the MIC in the floor of Assembly: Disvalue( Para-40)

o Face saving of the government by MIC.( Para-40) o Proactive role of District Authority made the distribution policy

transparent and just.( Para-43) Good governance

o Persuasive role of BDO to restore democratic rights at lower tier of Panchayat Raj Institution (PRI).(Para-6)

o Upright and judicious role of Sabhadhipati.(Para-7) o Prompt and responsive action by DM & SP.( Para-15) o Police- Magistrate relationship: good at top(Para-15)

of 33

31

o Arrest of a Sabhapati who belongs to the ruling party- unique incidence.(Para-16)

o OC activated by SP.( Para-16) o Information channel of BDO- saved his life.( Para-23) o DM & SP both responsive and sensitive.( Para-24) o Professionalism and networking of BDO.( Para-26) o Proactive role of DM realizing the highly critical nature of the

problem.( Para-34) o Impartial enquiry by SDO.( Para-35) o Firm and unrelenting attitude of district officials made the

political executives bow down.( Para-39) o Professional and strategic move by DM to inform Chief Secretary

so that he in turn conveys it to CM.( Para-41) o Realistic role of CM.( Para-41) o Proactive role of District Authority made the distribution policy

transparent and just.( Para-43) Bad governance

o Deterioration of relationship between government officials and Panchayat Raj functionaries resulting in victimization of government officers while discharging impartial duties. (Para-1)

o Misuse of power by the ruling party. (Para-1) o Government officers at remote areas are treated as soft targets.

(Para-1) o Ignoring the lower tier of PRI(GP) the resolution was taken in

KSSS which was contrary to the prevailing norms of distribution- undermining the democratic institution.( Para-5)

o Arrogance of Sabhapati in complying with DM’s order : tension between political and executive bureaucracy.(Para-6)

o Incomplete Government orders without procedural details create confusion at field level leaving scope for maneuvering: lack of professionalism. (Para-7)

o Misinterpretation of Government orders by PAO to please the political boss. (Para-7)

o Pressure tactics by political counterpart to realize unlawful gain: the lower level to which politicians can go.(Para-12)

o Inaction of local OC.( Para-15) o Police- Magistrate relationship: bad at lower level.(Para-15) o Doubtful role of SDPO!( Para-16) o Failure of police intelligence: inadequate measures taken by the

administration for maintenance of peace.( Para-18) o Solidarity of Service Cadre: ultimate sufferer is the public.(

Para-21) o Conspicuous absence of the middle tier administration- SDO &

SDPO.( Para-24) o Preconceived hidden agenda led to postponement of meeting in

spite of quorum: lack of transparency.( Para-27) Acts, Rules, Orders and Procedure

o Introduction of Community Development Programme : nature and volume of work at Block level changes. (Para-1)

of 33

32

o Importance of drafting of an FIR( sec. 154 of Cr.P.C): bad drafting may lead to acquittal.( Para-15)

o Obstructing and abusing the Public Servant- offence u/s 188 IPC.( Para-16)

o Suspension of Sahakari Sabhapati( School Teacher)- CCA Rules. ( Para-19)[Also see Arrest & Bail- provisions of Cr.P.C]

o Special meeting for removal of BDO: Section 119(1) of WB Panchayat Act, 1973.( Para-25)

o Knowledge is power( Section 108 of WB Panchayat Act, 1973.)( Para-32)

o Has the DM violated Government Order?( Para-40) Leadership

o DM’s order aimed at further decentralization taking all concerned into confidence.( Para-8)

o Guiding role of BDO for maintenance of equity and fairness.(Para-9)

o Proper guidance by the DM.(Para-10) o DM did not take the abuse personally in greater public interest

keeping in mind that the three tier PRI system was at its budding stage: capacity of DM to visualize a situation holistically.(Para-12)

o Leadership quality of BDO- it is always lonely at the top.( Para-33)

o Professional and strategic move by DM to inform Chief Secretary so that he in turn conveys it to CM.( Para-41)

o BDO- a Public Servant in the true sense of it.( Para-42) o Inspired leadership of BDO motivated others- professionalism at

its best: not allowing personal assault to intrude into his professional work.( Para-42)

Desirable qualities of a Civil Servant o Guiding role of BDO for maintenance of equity and

fairness.(Para-9) o Analyzing and decisive power of BDO.(Para-11) o Prompt and responsive action by DM & SP.( Para-15) o Information channel of BDO- saved his life.( Para-23) o DM & SP both responsive and sensitive.( Para-24) o Detached involvement and professional competence of BDO-

Nishkam Karma: enabled him to remain unperturbed, managing stress.( Para-25)

o Professionalism and networking of BDO.( Para-26) o Acceptability of BDO by all concerned and moral support.( Para-

29) o Knowledge is power( Section 108 of WB Panchayat Act, 1973.)(

Para-32) o Leadership quality of BDO- it is always lonely at the top.( Para-

33) o Ability to marshal information.( Para-33) o Impartial enquiry by SDO.( Para-35) o Firm and unrelenting attitude of district officials made the

political executives bow down.( Para-39)

of 33

33

o BDO- a Public Servant in the true sense of it.( Para-42) o Inspired leadership of BDO motivated others- professionalism at


Intra-service relationship

o OC activated by SP.( Para-16) o Solidarity of Service Cadre: It has two sides- 1) government is

forced to redress any unjust act of omission or commission;2) if it leads to ultimate pen down or withdrawal, ultimate sufferer is the public which justifies legislation like ESMA ( Essential Commodities Maintenance Act)( Para-21)

o Inter and intra service solidarity amongst government officials.( Para-26)

o Active role of fellow feeling.( Para-38) Inter-service relationship

o Police- Magistrate relationship: good at top but bad at lower level. ( Para-15)

o Pressure by the officer’s Association.( Para-22) o Inter and intra service solidarity amongst government officials.(

Para-26) o Active role of fellow feeling.( Para-38)

Values & ethics o Pressure tactics by political counterpart to realize unlawful

gain- disvalue:(Para-12) o Physical assault on AEO & BDO instigated by political

executives as ultimate tool of pressure tactics – temporary gain: disvalue ( Para-13)

o De-motivating effects of Physical assault: disvalue( Para-14) o Criminalization of politics: disvalue (Para-24) o Detached involvement( working without personal attachment)

and professional competence of BDO- Nishkam Karma: enabled him to remain unperturbed, managing stress.( Para-25)

o Support for integrity, righteousness and professional competence. of BDO even against the political allegiance.( Para-26)

o Preconceived hidden agenda led to postponement of meeting in spite of quorum: lack of transparency disvalue ( Para-27)

o Acceptability of BDO by all concerned and moral support.( Para-29)

o Impartial enquiry by SDO.( Para-35) o Truth triumphs ultimately.( Para-35) o Twisting of facts by MP: Disvalue( Para-37) o Firm and unrelenting attitude of district officials made the

political executives bow down.( Para-39) o Inspired leadership of BDO motivated others- professionalism at


o Ability to demarcate between different paths of action- Law & Development.( Para-42)

page 1 of 33 panchayat and bureaucracy srimanta …page 1 of 33 1 panchayat and bureaucracy srimanta...

Documents