Babus and the 2G scam fallout

At least till recently when an Office Memorandum (OM), prepared by a relatively junior officer of the Ministry of Finance, staidly claiming to merely be ‘a copy of basic facts prepared on allocation and pricing of 2G spectrum’, almost brought two senior Ministers to blows and nearly cost one of them his job.

This was no doubt a rude awakening for the politicians but must have surprised quite a few dull bureaucrats as well, used as they were to hail-loads of OMs throughout their mundane file-ridden existence. Not so much because of its impact – there is no doubt that many, especially the one who wrote it and marked it ‘secret’ in his own hand, almost as an afterthought, and others aware of it, could not have missed its explosive content. What shook the unchanging world of officialdom was the fact that an OM had done it.

OMs are stiffly worded ‘circular’ letters issued by the various departments and ministries bringing out the import of various decisions of Government. These could deal with widely divergent issues like grant of Special Compensatory Allowance for officers posted in remote areas, directions to ensure effective implementation of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labeling) Rules or could cover areas like the introduction of the revised Voluntary Retirement Scheme, enhancement of Dearness Allowance and suggestions of how to ‘minimize handling of cash by Government offices etc.

OMs galore

The only instance that one could recall of an OM that rocked the normally steady bureaucratic ship was OM No 1(4)/2010E-II dated 27/3/2010 issued under the signature of Under Secretary, S Rajan Chandranaydu, about over-time allowances which later was found to be fake. “The case is being probed by senior officials. But nothing as yet has been found,” a DoPT (Union department of personnel and training) official said and went on to explain: “The possibility of it being an April Fool prank is also being looked into. But even in such a case, the guilty could face the music,” he said.

As usual the guilty was never found and the record was set straight, by issue of another OM. ‘Ministries and departments are advised not to take cognisance of the fake instructions being circulated in central government offices,” the office memorandum signed by DoPT director Simmi R Nakra said.

In sharp contrast to all these OMs, the one issued by Dr P G S Rao, Deputy Director in the Infrastructure and Investment Division of the Department of Economic Affairs on March 25 this year is marked ‘secret’ and is signed by an officer not authorised to ‘authenticate’ government orders. To give some semblance of authenticity to the paper, Dr Rao mentions: ‘This has been seen by the Finance Minister’.
The intriguing part: it is addressed to Ms Vini Mahajan, Joint Secretary, PMO.

Intentions clear

What is not mentioned in the covering letter reveals more than what is written in it. Why was the letter sent by a relatively junior officer and that also from a subordinate office? Why was the letter sent at all? Did the PMO call for it or was it as a result of a discussion that Finance Minister had with the PM? Try to think of various answers to these questions and it starts becoming clear why this is, perhaps, the first one ever issued with such important implications and why two senior ministers clashed with each other. Now read some of the ‘basic facts’ contained in the attached note.

A mere reading of Para 11 will tell you why the note was sent, why the Finance Ministry was bye-passed and the note got signed from a junior officer, what it really says, and why the ministers clashed.

 “The DOT response of Nov 29, 2007 was brought to the notice of the then Finance Minister on 09-01-08, along with suggestions to argue for revision of the entry fee and adoption for auction with spectrum usage charges as the bid parameter……no response, however, was sent by DEA to DoT either on the issues raised  by DOT….finally, a note was sent by the then Finance Minister to the Prime Minister on January 15, 2008 wherein auction of spectrum was argued, but only with reference to spectrum beyond the ‘start up’ spectrum.” (The italics are mine)

Well, it is not difficult to understand the import of these few lines in the note since it is the non-auction of the ‘start-up spectrum’ that the CAG has estimated could have cost the exchequer more than Rs 1,75,000 crores. And any guesses who the then FM was? Well, if you still can’t understand the lingo of the bureaucrats, let me tell you: he is the present Home Minister.

(The writer is a retired IAS officer who was Secretary, Government of India and Chief Secretary, Delhi.)