Answer:

Introduction:

Transparency International defines corruption as an abuse of power that undermines trust in political systems and institutions. Non-performance of duty can be seen as a form of corruption depending on the circumstances and intentions involved.

Arguments in support of non-performance as a form of corruption:

• Misleading the public: Failure to fulfill duty and withholding information, e.g., a government officer concealing evidence in a corruption case.
• Disregarding orders: Neglecting instructions for personal gain, like a revenue officer refusing to investigate land encroachments.
• Unprofessionalism: Neglecting duty, such as a police officer ignoring complaints or neglecting to file FIRs.
• Violation of rights: Neglecting responsibilities, denying entitlements, e.g., a civil servant not processing welfare applications.
• Legal implications: Non-performance of public duty is an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act, e.g., intentional pension delays.

Arguments against non-performance as a form of corruption:

• Ethical considerations: Refusal to carry out ethically conflicting orders, e.g., a forest officer refusing illegal deforestation.
• Technical issues: Unforeseen circumstances or problems hindering duty, like a doctor unable to reach a remote village due to weather.
• Systemic challenges: Limited resources, coordination, or budget constraints affecting duty, e.g., a teacher lacking infrastructure for quality education.
• Ambiguity in law: Lack of clear laws on non-performance in civil services makes it difficult to hold public servants accountable for their failure to fulfill duties.
• Less updated rules: Outdated rules in civil services fail to address evolving forms of non- performance, allowing public servants to escape accountability for inaction or negligence.
• Unavailable resources: Insufficient resources hinder public servants in civil services from fulfilling obligations, leading to non-performance as a result of systemic deficiencies.

It is important to strike a balance between holding public servants accountable for their responsibilities and considering the context and reasons behind non-performance. While deliberate non-performance without valid justifications can be seen as a grave offense, it is crucial to address systemic challenges and ensure ethical decision-making in evaluating the non-performance of public servants. Ultimately, upholding the constitutional values and fulfilling public duties should be the guiding principles for civil servants to contribute positively to society.

DOWNLOAD PDF