The Centre’s ongoing tussle with former West Bengal Chief Secretary Mr Alapan Bandyopadhyay (he is now the advisor to state Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee) is having a ripple effect in the bureaucracy. Speaking with different publications, a number of former bureaucrats have openly pitched for Mr Bandyopadhyay.

Former Union Home Secretary G K Pillai told The Indian Express “This is perhaps the first time in the history of independent India that a Secretary-level officer is being posted at the Centre one day before retirement. The order is totally irregular. And to say that a Secretary-level officer must report to Delhi by 10 am (on a particular day) is just unheard of. The joining time is normally six days plus travelling time for all bureaucrats. That the DoPT Secretary agreed to issue such an order says a lot about the state Indian bureaucracy is in.”

Former Cabinet Secretary B K Chaturvedi also spoke to The Indian Express over the controversial issue as he said, “It is evident the Government of India was of the view that Bandyopadhyay’s continuance in the state was important or else he would not have been given an extension of service (when Banerjee applied for the same, before his retirement). But then another order to report to the Centre was issued. Clearly it shows they were dissatisfied with his conduct. Still, it is not such a thing for which such orders are passed. It takes away the faith of the civil service in the rule of law. The PM has not been advised properly in this matter,”

He said provisions for central deputation require the officer and the state to give their consent. “A consultation is done, and if the Centre is not satisfied with a state’s reasons to not relieve the officer, it can insist. But that does not mean the consultation process itself should be done away with,” Chaturvedi said.

Mr Satyanand Misra, former secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), feared the episode would demotivate officers. “This is a very disturbing development. Younger officers will get demotivated. We must understand that the civil service was conceived primarily to serve in states. Only those who are willing come to the Centre. If you set a precedent that whoever you are angry with will be called to the Centre, how will bureaucrats work?” Misra said.

In an article published by the Times of India, former Cabinet Secretary Mr K M Chandrashekhar wrote “The key word is “deputation”. An IAS officer is deputed from the state to the Centre, not the other way round. The deputation of an IAS officer always involved a decision of both the central and state governments, even though the view of the former would prevail in case of disagreement. I am not aware of any change in this rule.

“I was, therefore, intrigued when the Chief Secretary of West Bengal, whose tenure had been extended by a period of three months after retirement with the approval of no less than the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet four days earlier, was suddenly posted to Delhi on the day he would have normally retired. As the Bengal CM’s subsequent letter shows, there was no consultation with the state government. The officer was obviously not willing to go on central deputation as he chose to retire, declining the extension given to him, rather than appear before the DOPT for a posting.

He further wrote, “In case Bandyopadhyay had come to Delhi on March 31, as required of him in the DOPT order, at what level would he have been posted? If he is posted at a lower level without his willingness, that is tantamount to a penalty imposed upon him without inquiry. Would this not be a violation of Article 311 of the Constitution? Or was he empanelled during the four days between May 24 and 28? There is no such indication. There are, thus, many curious aspects. At the end of the day, I am left with the impression that this is another off-the-cuff, impulsive action, driven by political fights rather than the needs of the country.”

Former Coal and School Education Secretary Mr Anil Swarup wrote in CNBC18 : “What is worse is that a civil servant got caught in the political cross-fire. Alapan Bandhopadhyay, the State Chief Secretary was with the Chief Minister. Hence, he wasn’t present to receive the PM when he arrived. This is a breach of protocol. However, except persuasively advising the CM to receive the PM and requesting her to relieve him to fulfil his duty of receiving the PM and attending his meeting, the Chief Secretary couldn’t have done anything else”

“Whether he could have and should have defied the orders of the CM to attend the meeting of the PM would be debated for a long time but in my personal view, it was not possible. In a State, a Secretary has to go by the directive of the CM. Under the present scheme of things, he was a part of the State Government and not under the direct control of the Central Government”, Mr Swarup wrote.

Former head of Prasar Bharati Mr Jawhar Sircar spoke with The Wire and said that the order sent by the Centre on May 28 was “full of inconsistencies.”

“First of all, it cannot issue a unilateral order on an IAS officer who is not under its control, but under another government within the federation. The second striking feature is that it is really not a posting order because it does not mention to which post the CS of this state has been posted. It is more of an intimation rather than a formal order and it requests the state government to release him,” he said.

“The central government cannot force IAS or IPS officers to join a central posting in Delhi against his will, without either his written ‘option’ or his cadre-controlling authority, the state government, giving him prior clearance to ‘opt’ for the Centre,” added Sircar.

When asked about what precedent the ongoing controversy sets, Mr Sircar said, “Definitely in the longer term it will have an impact on bureaucracy. But moreover, it’s an exercise with a combination of absolute arrogance and stupidity. The Centre’s position had no base.”

Former Planning Commission member Mr N.C. Saxena told The Wire that the Centre’s unilateral decision was a reflection of growing authoritarianism and centralisation in India. “On the face of it, the decision looks vindictive. There were no consultations at all,” he said. “Our country is facing a crisis in the sense that authoritarianism, majoritarianism, and centralisation is growing in this regime. Earlier, officers sought out vacancies in the Government of India.”

“Whatever be the circumstances underlying the Centre’s order,” former Union Revenue Secretay Mr E.A.S. Sarma said, “to transfer the senior-most civil servant of the State at a time like this, when the State is facing the brunt of Covid and the aftermath of the recent cyclone, raises questions on justification for such an abrupt decision.”

In a letter to the prime minister, Mr Sarma wrote:

“Technically speaking, the IAS (Cadre) Rules no doubt empower the Centre to recall IAS officers from the State, but such a recall should be based on justifiable grounds and for upholding the public interest. Even while taking such a decision, the Centre is required to hold prior consultation with the State and, in the event of disagreement, the Centre should cite the extraordinary circumstances that justify such a recall.”

Former chief secretary of Maharashtra Mr D M Sukhtankar said that in the present circumstances, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Central government is wrong on their part to call back chief secretary of West Bengal to whom they had only given three months extension.

“PM Narendra Modi only gave an extension to the chief secretary of West Bengal so it is also not legally right for them to call back. If the person is working any places so it is his duty and responsibility to work their only first. Morally also, this is not the right for centre to do such things,” Mr. Sukhtankar said.