Governments are quick to invoke the rule of law but are less good at living by it. The Department of Personnel and Training’s decision to void the Food Ministry’s suspension of an FCI Executive Director is a case in point. By declaring the order non est, or legally non-existent, the DoPT overturned a suspension. But it also indicated that the ministry never had the authority to issue it in the first place. That clearly is not a routine correction, sources have informed DKB.
The officer, Ashutosh Joshi of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service, is facing serious allegations over the alleged diversion of rice meant for the public distribution system in the Northeast. If the charges are proved, he should face the consequences. But that isn’t the point under dispute. The real question is whether a ministry can ignore the rules simply because it wants to act quickly.
India’s civil service doesn’t work on administrative instinct. It runs on a carefully defined distribution of powers. Officers belonging to organised Group ‘A’ services fall under the disciplinary control of their cadre-controlling authority. The intent is to safeguard against arbitrary action. If ignored, even a well-intentioned decision risks collapsing on procedural grounds.
Which makes this episode rather awkward. Did the ministry fail to check whether it had the legal power to suspend the officer? Or was speed considered more important than procedure? Neither possibility reflects well on the system.
Following orders is no defence: Kerala HC
One enduring myth is that babus merely implement the wishes of the political executive. That may be how governments like to describe the relationship. It is certainly not how the Constitution sees it.
The Kerala High Court’s sharp observations in the K Biju case are a reminder of an uncomfortable truth: an IAS officer cannot hide behind the government when exercising a statutory power. If an order bears your signature, it must also bear your judgement.
That’s why the court’s insistence on “proper application of mind” matters. Too often, controversial decisions emerge as though they were assembled elsewhere and simply signed by the officer concerned. Everyone understands how power works. Ministers decide, and babus execute. But execution does not mean surrendering independent judgement. The law expects government officials to ask whether an order is legal, reasoned and defensible.
The court’s refusal to treat an unconditional apology as the end of the matter is equally significant. Public administration cannot function based on “sorry” after the fact. If that became the standard, accountability would become optional and due process negotiable.
This should resonate far beyond Kerala. Across India, governments increasingly expect senior officers to defend decisions that stretch, and sometimes cross, legal boundaries. Many comply, convinced that loyalty to the government of the day is part of the job. It isn’t. While governments come and go, court judgements and official files outlive them. A babu’s signature, then, is all-important.
Passing UPSC is only the beginning
Every year, lakhs of young Indians pin their hopes on the UPSC examination. For the few who make it to the IAS, the popular perception is that the hard part is over. However, an RTI response from the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration tells a different story.
Twenty-four IAS probationers failed in one or more subjects during training between 2021 and 2026. None was dismissed. All eventually cleared the papers.
Far from exposing a weakness in the system, these numbers reveal one of its strengths. The Academy is not in the business of celebrating past achievement. It is preparing future district magistrates, secretaries and policymakers. Clearing the UPSC proves intellectual ability. It does not automatically equip someone to run a district, interpret laws, manage crises or lead large teams.
That is why training matters. More importantly, so do assessments. A probationer who struggles with a subject should be expected to learn, improve and pass. The purpose of training is competence, not punishment.
In a country where examinations are often treated as the finish line, the IAS still recognises that learning cannot end with a rank list. It must continue in the classroom, in the field and throughout a career.
We should take comfort from that. We expect India’s civil servants to make decisions that affect millions. The least we can ask is that they continue to be tested before they are entrusted with that responsibility.