Government to come up with a better system to appraise the performance of bureaucrats.--Economic times
NEW DELHI: The government has decided to go after slack bureaucrats, with Cabinet Secretary Ajit Seth promising a review of the performance appraisal system and Personnel Secretary PK Mishra advocating a system that ensures lesser salary for incompetent babus. In candid comments made to a gathering of the country's top bureaucrats at the weekend, Seth said: "The feedback to the performance appraisal system is mixed. Everyone is getting near perfect scores. If everyone is outstanding, then no one is. We will come up with a better system to appraise the performance of bureaucrats."
( My Observation :--- In banks too, most of officers are given more than 90 marks out of 100 and hence all are outstanding as per APAR , But during promotion process many of these so called excellent officers are rejected by Interview panel and those who got 60 to 70 marks are selected. When all or majority of officers get more than 90 marks , the members of interview panel become more powerful to make or mar the career of an officer)
Several corporate luminaries have blasted India's bureaucracy in recent months for being obstructionist and unimaginative. The global CEO of Britain's Vodafone Group Plc, Vittorio Colao, in a media interview last February said India's bureaucracy was "damaging" to the country. "I think the government is making a good effort to try to change this, but cannot continue with a bureaucracy that wakes up in the morning and decides to give another interpretation of something," he said.
Former Cabinet Secretary Naresh Chandra, who was a keynote speaker at the weekend conference, echoed said the feeling overseas was that India's bureaucracy is impeding its economic growth. He said against such a context if 90% of the bureaucrats were termed outstanding in their appraisals, then "we are prisoners of our own systems".
ET had reported on April 13 that unlike the corporate sector, the government's Annual Performance Assessment Report ( APAR) system was structured such that every bureaucrat scored 9 out of 10. Unlike in most professionally-run organisations, the appraisal system does not require the appraisee to meet the appraiser face-to-face, ensuring that the pay packet of a vast majority of officials is largely untouched and delinked with performance.
My Comment: It is worthwhile to mention here that maximum loss caused to government banks either due to fraud or due to rise in bad assets is contributed by so called star performers. When bosses are corrupt they like corrupt only and hence they give maximum marks to those officers only who help them in becoming wealthier and powerful by hook or by crook Following is the classic example of how the star performers looted the bank and cause loss to public , tax payers and investors.
If APAR of banks is also put under scanner I think majority of bank officers who are now top executives or who have retired from bank as top executives will go behind bar.I have been advocating CBI investigation into all APAR,Promotion processes and transfers which took place during last ten years to expose the fraudulent game going on in banks in the name of Human Resource Development.
If APAR of banks is also put under scanner I think majority of bank officers who are now top executives or who have retired from bank as top executives will go behind bar.I have been advocating CBI investigation into all APAR,Promotion processes and transfers which took place during last ten years to expose the fraudulent game going on in banks in the name of Human Resource Development.
Ponzi schemes show failure of formal banking--Economic times
The collapse of one large so-called "chit fund" entity, called the Saradha Group, leading to the closure of nearly a dozen newspapers and TV channels in Bengal and elsewhere, has become a major embarrassment for the Trinamool Congress and its regime in the state.
The reason is the party's proximity to the absconding promoter of the company and several officials close to him. But whatever the political outcome, the repeated sprouting of dubious Ponzi schemes across the country points to a failure of the formal saving and banking system.
India is notoriously underbanked. Less than 65 banks, including those that are state-owned, privately-owned and foreign, serve a nation of 1.2 billion people. America, with less than a third of India's population, has more than 6,000 banks, even after a massive financial crisis wiped out several institutions.
Lack of financial inclusion has several adverse results: one, without access to any formal sector, savers are driven to parallel markets for savings and loans. This perpetuates the grip of moneylenders and the informal lending system on society.
Two, this way, a part of savings, at least, is diverted from economically productive channels into the cash economy. Three, the lack of formal banking precludes awareness about markets and finance among people.
People who are aware of markets would find any scheme that offers, say, 100% returns in one year suspicious and shun them. But those who are not aware of current bank interest rates might easily fall for such a scheme.
To break out of this vicious cycle, the government must issue many more banking licences and keep issuing them periodically. It makes no sense to force banks to open branches in rural areas. Instead, the government should allow the use of low-cost technology, like mobile banking, to spread financial inclusion.
The Reserve Bank of India should embrace the idea of allowing mobile companies or their joint ventures with existing banks to offer banking services.
No comments:
Post a Comment