Boostrapping : CT.03 - Jury Trial over Central Govt Employee
Proposed administrative procedure
CT.03   -   Jury   Trial   over   Central   Government   Employee
Purpose : To reduce nexusproness in central govt staff
Pre-requisite reading : Why Jury System is superior than judge system
- Existing procedure against unfit officer
- Flaws in the today's procedure
- Proposed improvement : CT.03
- Which procedure is less nexusprone?
- Advantages of CT.03
- Draft of the act to create procedure CT.03
The purpose is to bring India's administration/courts at par with West. How? By improving record keeping in GoI-offices and reducing nexuses in GoI-offices and courts. How? We would need several laws to achieve that.
CT.03 is one of these proposed laws. (to see the list of some of the laws, please click here). The proposed law CT.03 creates a LESS nexusprone mechanism to decide if an accused employee of city/district govt should be expelled/punished or not.
Existing procedure against unfit officer
Suppose citizens have complaint against a Central Govt officer. Or say that employee's behavior is NOT as per the citizenry's general expectations. Then what remedies do citizens have today?
As of today, citizens can file complaint against that employee before an MLA/Minister or senior officer or a judge. If they believe that complaint is frivilous, they can ignore it. Or if they decide against the employee, then a so called "departmental inquiry" is called. The officers/judges etc may conduct and inquiry and decide of the employee should be fined/expelled. And ultimately, the judges in High/Supreme Court will have the final say.
Flaws in the today's procedure
The sitting/retired officers and judges who preside the inquiry have had a long career, and during that career they often form dense nexuses with fellow officers/judges or lawyers who specialize in such cases. And the officer who is being investigated can often use those nexuses to get away. Also, the officers/judges presiding the inquiry know that defunctness in administration would hurt only the commons, and NOT the senior officers/judges. So in general, they are less concerned about reducing corruption, nexuses etc in administration. So even if the officer being investigated is guilty, they really have no reason to write remark against him.
Proposed improvement - CT.03 : Jury Trials over Central Govt Employees
Following is the proposed administrative procedures, which are much less nexusprone that existing the above mentioned departmental inquiry :
The procedure is similar to CT.01, except that complain against a Central Govt officer is presided by a Jury chosen from a DIFFERENT state than the state he was serving.
- The PM will appoint a JA (Jury Administrator) for each district. The PM may assign this responsibility to an existing JA.
- The JA will randomly select 30 citizens as the Grand Jury. Each Grand Juror will have a term of three months. So every month, 1/3rd will retire.
- Any citizen who has evidences/witnesses to show that an employee of Central Govectment is corrupt/inefficient/nexused, or his behaviour is much below the citizenry's expectations, he can present these evidences/witnesses before the Grand Jurors.
- If over 15 Grand Jurors declare that the complain has some truth in it, then JA will randomly select a district from the neighboring State, and forward the complain to that Grand Jury.
- If over 15 Grand Jurors of 2nd district also declare that the complain has some truth in it, then JA of that district will randomly choose 12 citizens from that District.
- If over 8 out of 12 Jurors, after listening to the arguments of both sides, declare that the employee was involved in an illegal act and is unfit to serve the citizens, the PM/Minister will expel the employee within 24 hours.
- No employee can be expelled, transferred or punished in any way without permission of Jurors. So if the any Minister, or senior officer has complaint against a junior officer, they MUST approach the Grand Jurors and ask for a Trial by Jury.
Which procedure is less nexusprone or better?
Which procedure is less nexusprone? The existing procedure in which ONLY Ministers, officers and judges have powers to expel an employee, or my proposed procedure, in which Jurors and ONLY Jurors have powers to expel an employee?
Since the Ministers, officers and judges have a long 5-30 year career, in general they would have developed nexuses with 100s of fellow Ministers, officers and judges, and even criminals and wealthy individuals living that area. So inquiries by Ministers, officers and judges will have effect of those nexuses. Whereas the 12 Jurors are chosen from a popolation of 10,00,000 were unknown before trial started, and hence were unnexused.
Also, the Jurors know that they will become common when the trial ends, and so they are more likely to think about impact of trial's verdict on the commons' lives. Where the judges, officers etc will not bother how the trial's verdict will impact the lives of the commons.
So Trial by Jury over Central Govt employee has several plus points over existing procedure of Inquiry/Trial by sitting or retired officers/judges. And Trial by Jury has NO minus points what-so-ever. Nevertheless, citizens using LM.01 should decide whether they want Trial by Jury or existing procedure or something else.
Also, since senior officers etc are very busy persons, and have lot of tasks to do, they seldom find time to hear the witnesses speedily. So enormous delay is caused and meanwhile witnesses get tired or tampered. So inquiry becomes fruitless. While Jurors can hear the case from mocting to evening, day after day, without throwing long dates. So there is less delay, and lesser denial of justice.
Advantages of CT.03
- Gives a much much LESS nexusprone procedure to decide if employee should be expelled or not
- Gives a much faster, yet fairer, procedure to decide if employee should be expelled or not
- Gives a nexusless procedure to supervise a an employee
Draft of the act to create procedure CT.03
To enact CT.03, the citizens would need to pass an act in the Parliament. I have written that draft. To look at the draft, please click here.
It will be wiser for citizens to first enact procedure LM.03, and then use LM.03 to pass this act. To know about procedure LM.03, please click here.
If you have any other question, please mail it to MehtaRahulC@yahoo.com. Thousand thanks in advance.
Next - CT.04 : Jury System in Quasi-Courts