- The process of the “Internal Disciplinary Inquiry” and “Development” Ideology
By Citizen-Ordinary
The “IDI”: the Non-Establishment Perspective
(July 22, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) I have been gathering information on the phenomenon of “IDI” from a cross section of people in both the private and the public sector institutes who are related to the conduct of “IDI” including senior administrators/managers, employees, trade unionists, inquiring officers/defending officers, and lawyers. The picture that emerges from my survey is one that rejects the idea of the innocuousness of the “IDI.”
The Non-Establishment perspective generally believes that in the public sector, especially within statutory bodies, the “IDI” can be used as a means of witch-hunt to corner those who are perceived to be “trouble makers” and that charge sheets are issued to employees, with the pre-determined intention of punishing them, mostly with dismissal. In other words, the “IDI” in the hands of a few, administrators, is a euphemism for eliminating those employees whom they identify as “trouble makers.”
A senior manager at the highest level within a very important government department told me that if there was any one who was not served a charge sheet within his department that would be a surprise. I think, by means of hyperbole, what he meant was that many an employee is brought under disciplinary charges as they occur commonly in the line of duty, especially with a large number of workers belonging to the lower strata in the hierarchy. Investigations and inquires are held, not as a means of dismissing or severely punishing the employees but merely as a means of maintaining discipline within the establishment.
However, according to others, the story with regard to why certain heads of establishments initiate investigations and hold inquires are entirely different. In their hands, an investigation is started with the intention of dismissing and/or severely punishing the “trouble makers” identified.
While statutory bodies managed by a Board of Directors or Governors are set up to facilitate the functioning of such establishments free of the restrictions of the usual government red tape or administrative and financial regulations, the “IDI” is a case in point where there is room for the abuse of this independence by the administrators.
“Enemy of the State” and the “E-Code”
What transpires in a situation of an internal inquiry, from the details that emerge from my preliminary investigation, seen from the perspective of the Non-Establishment, is somewhat similar in principle to what comes to be revealed in Tony Scott’s 1998 movie Enemy of the State starring Will Smith as Robert Dean where Dean unknowingly crosses the path of a powerful state bureaucrat only to experience his wrath pounding upon him and hounding him in the form of a vindictive, vicious, devious, manipulation of the power and authority of the state machinery at his disposal with the objective of bringing Dean to capitulation. Hence, at least some of the key details of this operation need to be outlined for the record.
The following account, of course, I must re-emphasize, is from the Non-Establishment perspective, whereas an attempt to present a reading of the Establishment perspective will follow. I need to reiterate that, even from the perspective of the Non-Establishment, such behaviour is found only on the part of a few senior administrators, whereas the Non-Establishment perspective does not consider the overwhelming majority of the state administrators as falling under this category. The Non-Establishment perspective considers the latter group as consisting of humane individuals who treat their employees as humans with their own lives and families to sustain and also their own views about how an establishment should be run which have their merit.
The first step
The Non-Establishment perspective maintains that once the so-called “trouble makers” are identified by the administrators, a carefully planned procedure is set up consisting of several key components built into it : a) Identify the “trouble makers” through various methods. b) Study their characters and build a case. c) Find a reason and decide upon a suitable punishment. d) Choose investigation and inquiring officers and make them aware of the punishment required. e) Arrange necessary physical and human resources. f) Make new appointments and promotions to facilitate the process. g) Ensure the confidential nature by altering physical arrangements and transferring human recourses. h) Prepare state witnesses by various methods of coercion. j) Prepare the mind set of the rest of the employees to accept the desired punishment as just.
According to the Non-Establishment perspective, the immediate first step taken by the administration, is to go through the personal files of the “trouble makers” and find any material from past however distant, to charge them with a major offence under the Establishment Code (hereafter the E-Code as it is called by members of the legal profession) to dismiss them from service on an issue completely unrelated to the present issue. If there is room for that, it will be immediately done.
(It needs to be mentioned here that while it is said that the E-Code is taught to all Government servants when entering the service, it is a fact that this is not the case always, especially in the case of certain statutory bodies consisting of professionals and/or academics as the mainstay of the staff. Then the question arises as to ‘How fair is to subject such employees suddenly to the disciplinary procedures of the E-Code if they have not been familiarised with the code to begin with?’ However, the Non-Establishment perspective maintains that it is a fact that some senior administrators resort to such unfair action.)
The second move
The second move is to bring under investigation and hold an “IDI” into the action of those against whom laying charges related to the present issue seems to be a straight forward case. The outcome of this second move could be, severe punishment to those who are put through the inquiry, and then getting them to appeal to mitigate their punishment, in the process turning them into “crown witnesses” against those who are perceived to be the “trouble makers” with regard to the issue, against whom the inquiry is conducted in the manner I elaborate below.
The third move: trap the “trouble makers”
If the matters under investigation are not self-evident, as in the above two instances, then a process of surreptitiously building a case begins with an eye to the fine detail, gathering all the evidence, and fabricating other evidence required by various means, coercing other employees to give evidence by subjecting them to various forms of harassment or winning them over with various rewards. Stick and carrot method is used to coerce potential witnesses to take the side of the administration. Those who do not cooperate are put under duress to the point of resignation.
Concerned parties are pressurized, cornered with acts made to appear as justifiable; tracks covered attributing legally valid reasons to them, with documentary support.
To facilitate the course of the “inquiry,” new appointments will be made even in violation of the well established norms. Those who cooperate and are willing to act on behalf of the administration will be given undue promotions creating the necessary conditions for such promotion to appear legal.
Senior employees in position to implement the administration’s decisions will be detailed to find fault with possible reluctant witnesses for any minor dissension even indirectly in their day to day office affairs and immediate investigations will be held thereby pressuring them to fall in line.
Other employees who are believed to have collaborated with the “trouble makers” even by simply publicly agreeing with their ideas on the issues under contestation in the inquiry but cannot be charged with “major offences,” will be subjected to immediate investigation for any minor infringement of “discipline” on their part on everyday minor issues. Thus, they will be silenced if not coerced to switch sides.
A strict regime of vigilance and scrutiny will be brought into operation to create the impression that anyone can be brought under investigation at any point over any issue and thereby subjected to “inquiry.” Thus a sense of a “total state” within the establishment is created almost eliminating even a minute form of dissent against the administration.
The “trouble makers” under investigation themselves are subjected to various deprivations of facilities they had access to until their fall out with the administration. Their personal files will be minutely scrutinized to find any opportunity to ‘tighten the screws’ on them whether it is related to loans they have taken, the bonds they have signed, or for any other material that can be used against them.
Administrators use various tactics to drive fear into those who are under investigation by various means such as spreading rumours as to what punishment would be meted out to them with the intention of driving the latter to what they believe as remedial action, with the hope that in the course of which they would further violate the E-code so that further charges could be added.
The Inquiry process puts the “trouble makers” through a long period of emotional and financial stress which is bound to have an impact on their work efficiency, which in turn can help the administrators to level the charge of inefficiency at them at later stages.
A “moral dimension” is created
An attempt will be made to create a negative public opinion toward the “trouble makers,” among the employees, the Board of Directors or Governors and even other outsiders who will have an interest in the case. Toward this end, statements that are attributed to the “trouble makers” would be made public to give a dimension of immorality to their behaviour. This would suggest that any disciplinary punishment meted out to them would be justified as they have done and said things morally reprehensible. Scurrilous papers purported to be from sections of the employees will appear confirming the views held by the administration on the “trouble makers” and to give the impression that they are isolated within the Establishment. A moral dimension is thus created to buttress the presumed legality of the inquiry.
The Non-Establishment perspective claims that the secretive and the meticulous manner in which all this is done makes one wonder whether such ‘case building’ is an essential part of the training given to administrative officers on how to cover their tracks with a fine eye to the details while on a witch-hunt and make every move appear legal and justified with the approval obtained from the authoritative bodies within the establishment or outside.
The Inquiring Officers and Investigation Officers
As in the case of the administrators, at the outset it needs to be emphasised that what is said below from the perspective of Non-Establishment applies only to a few inquiring officers and investigation officers, whereas the large majority in the practice are humane people who treat employees subjected to the process of inquiry as people who should be treated justly and fairly during the process without manipulating the process to the advantage of the administrators.
In the case of the type of administrators we are discussing here, “investigation officers” and “inquiring officers” to carry out this process are selected by them from among those who are known to them. They are, in general, people who have served under the senior administrators in the government service, whether retired or currently in government service. If they are retired they are more bound to the administrators who hire them as it provides them their supplementary income in their retirement, and otherwise, an income additional to the salary. It is said that an inquiring officer are paid a very high fee per sitting at the inquiry whereas investigating officers will be paid less but considerable amounts compared to the government salaries. It is well known that inquiries can be dragged over long periods.
There are specific investigating officers and inquiring officers hired by these state administrators because they are well known to help the administrators to get rid of “troubles makers.” Such “inquiring officers” who are hired commonly by these senior administrators in some government departments and establishments are said to be hired to “clean the dirt” in the public sector with all the implications of how “dirt” is treated. They are known to give the pre-determined judgment the administration wants, despite that defending officers would have proved otherwise during the proceedings. Some such inquiring officers are known by the labels which refer to their ability to eliminate people from the public service. They are in high demand.
The investigation officers chosen for the job, undertakes to construct the statements the administrators want through a rigorous process of interrogation using the threat of
various provisions of the E-Code. Once an employee becomes the subject of an “investigation” he is under the constant threat of being brought under one or the other clause of the E-Code.
Some of these investigation officers and inquiry officers are said to work as teams in consultation with each other, the former working under the guidance of the latter in formulating evidence in a manner that would help framing the charges to give the punishment that the administration requires.
It is said that the investigation officer and the inquiry officer will always give the false impression that they are concerned and in sympathy with the employee and thereby on their side while fulfilling the wishes of the administrators.
At the end of the inquiry if it is a statutory body, the authoritative body of the establishment which consists of directors or board of governors will be told that all the charges have been proved and that the inquiring officer recommends specific punishment/s for each charge. They generally agree to the punishment.
What is not generally questioned by them is the very validity of the charges, and whether the charges levelled are commensurate with the activities that are supposed to have transpired. These are not generally questioned seriously as the investigators and inquiring officers themselves mostly being senior retired administrative officers known to them in various capacities.
That the judgement of the inquiring officer does not address the issues raised by the defending officer is evident from the fact that an inquiry officer concludes his judgment even before the defending officer makes his final written submissions.
Administrators know that once a judgment is given and punishment is meted out, the employees have to go through the long drawn process of seeking redress through the Labour Tribunal and court cases which can take a lifetime and incur a colossal cost.
A vast array of additional details can be added to the above sketch to further flesh out the “IDI” as narrated from the perspective of the Non-Establishment, which is comparable in character and principle to well organized spy operations run by well established intelligence organizations to eliminate identified enemies.
Now, if things such as above, occur as claimed by the Non-Establishment perspective, during the process of an “investigation” and “inquiry”, how would the senior administrators who execute such “inquires,” their investigating officers and inquiring officers and the authorities in directorates/ boards of governors who provide the much needed legal backing to such administrators, would see such operations from their own perspective?
Common sense and Theorizing
Common sense would generally interpret the above action of the senior administrators as either in terms of their self interest or their need to enforce discipline and order, to run the establishment efficiently.
Most theorizing that prevail on the subject of modern bureaucracy also would provide more sophisticated versions of the above two common sense positions.
Max Weber who is the leading pioneering authority on the subject considered bureaucracy as the epitome of modern capitalist rationality ensuring the efficiency of the modern organization.
The criticism that the members of the bureaucracy act out of individual self-interest is given theoretical expression in the idea of a bureaucracy degenerated, that is, the bureaucracy acting outside its character of rule bound rationality thus becoming corrupt and assuming the character of an oligarchy which takes things personally abandoning the formal impersonality of the bureaucratic rationality. Where authority is highly centralized within bureaucracy, rationality gives way to inefficiencies.
Which of these two understandings, both of which share rationality as the guiding principle of bureaucracy, fit into the perspectives of the senior administrators under scrutiny here? An attempt will be made in the following section, to provide an answer to this question, from the perspective of the administrators.
To be continued
Post a Comment