The hierarchical system of management involves, that the chief of a section or department being assisted by a number of persons. The work of each is dependent on the other. The group of persons carries out a single function or process of work. Every member has to communicate with each other. The person controlling the group and coordinating their working has also to communicate with each member of the group. In fact the effectiveness of the functioning of the group lies in coordination and cooperation, based on mutual understanding and supporting each other. Easy & instant communication within the group is the heart of this cooperation and coordination. In the normal course most of the communication will be verbal. This is necessary to carry out routine work in the usual or normal course. Thus if the authority having control over an employee asks verbally to perform a particular work, which is assigned to him as part of his duties, the employee cannot seek written orders. Similarly if the controlling authority located at another Station in a geographically dispersed organization telephonically requests for some urgent information on a matter, this cannot be refused demanding written orders. In all such cases, such demand for written orders will not provide any additional security or protection to the employee, but will embarrass the instructing authority. It may delay and hamper smooth flow of work. In a particular case an employee refused to obey oral instruction to perform a routine job and demanded instructions in writing. The authority readily obliged, but in the written orders, he also added the following:-

"When you were asked to do this work orally, you refused and demanded written instructions. Hence this written order"

The employee could not understand the implication of the statement. But he became wiser, when a memo was served on him subsequently calling for his explanation for disobeying due orders of the superior, when conveyed originally orally. Performing a routine task on the basis of verbal orders does not result in the employee accountable except for due performance of the job. In such cases verbal or oral orders should not be refused. As this hampers smooth flow work, such refusal of an employee will be deemed misconduct.

When the performance of the job attaches a special accountability on the employee, more than for its due performance, it is justified to demand written orders, and if in urgent circumstances, such assignment has to be done on oral orders, a written confirmation must be provided subsequently. By way of an example, when an employee is asked to work in a seat involving higher responsibility for which he is eligible to receive a special allowance, it is reasonable for him to demand orders in writing, so that his subsequent claim for the special benefit is not denied, due to lack of orders evidencing that the work was duly entrusted to him.

PNB officer Employees (Conduct)Regulation No.3 (3) reads as under:

3. No officer employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgement except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior

In this instance, if the direction of his immediate superior is conveyed verbally to the employee, what is the position of the employee and how he will prove that he had acted under due orders of a superior officer in the absence evidence thereof in the form of a written instruction?

The contents of this regulations are expressed more explicitly in the corresponding Regulation i.e. sub-rule 2(ii)of Rule 3 of CCS(conduct)Rules, 1964 governing employees of the Government of India. The said sub-rule reads as under:-

"No government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgement except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior and shall, where he is acting under such direction, obtain the direction in writing, wherever practicable and where it is not practicable to obtain the direction in writing he shall obtain written confirmation of the direction as soon thereafter as possible"

In order to bring home the implications of this rule in the actual working and make the position clear to one and all, the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms vide Office Memorandum No.11013/12/78/AIS(III) dated 1st August, 1978 has conveyed the following guidelines to all Ministries and Departments of the Government of India.

1. The undersigned is directed to say that recently the practice adopted by senior officials and the personnel staff of Ministries in conveying oral instructions to their subordinates has been brought to the notice of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. It has further been suggested to this department that the role of oral instruction in the transaction of the business of the Government has to be defined and definite guidelines set down. The matter has been carefully examined and the Government has taken the decisions contained in the succeeding paragraphs.

2. The role of oral instructions in the transaction of business of Government has already been specified under sub-rule 2(ii) of Rule 3 of the CCS(Conduct)Rules, 1964.

3. The purpose of this rule is that there shall be on record a written direction from the authority under whose orders the relevant decision or action is taken. It follows from this that where action is taken in accordance with the direction of the Minister, it would be the responsibility of the Secretary to obtain such direction in writing before further action is taken or where this is not practicable to seek confirmation thereof immediately thereafter. Clarificatory instruction were issued vide this Department's O.M.No.11013/18/76 EST(A) dated 07.02.1977 to the effect that it is the duty of the superior official giving the direction to confirm it in writing when such confirmation is sought by his subordinates. It is not open to the superior officer to refuse to confirm in writing direction given by him orally, just it is open to him to state immediately that no such direction is given.

4. In the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Conduct Rules and the instructions issued thereunder, it is impressed upon all Government Servant that:

   1. Oral instructions should not, as far as possible, be issued by senior officers to their subordinates;

   2. If the oral instructions are issued by any senior officer they should be confirmed by him in writing immediately thereafter;

   3. If a junior officer seeks confirmation to the oral instructions given by the senior, the latter should confirm it in writing whenever such confirmation is sought;

   4. A junior officer who has received oral orders from his superior officer should seek confirmation in writing as early as practicable;

   5. Whenever a member of the personnel staff of a Minister communicates the oral order on behalf of the Minister it should be confirmed by him in writing immediately thereafter;

   6. If a junior officer received oral instructions from the Minister or his personal staff and the orders are in accordance with the norms, rules, regulations of procedure, they should be brought to the information of the Secretary or Head of the Department, as the case may be, for information; and

   7. If a junior officer receives oral instructions from the Minister or from his personal staff and the orders are not in accordance with the norms, rules, regulations or procedures, they should seek further clear orders from the Secretary or the Head of the Department, as the case may be, about the line of action to be taken, stating clearly that the oral instructions are not in accordance with the rules, regulation, norms or procedures.

It is clear that substantive actions or decisions are not to be made on the basis of oral orders of superiors, and the guidelines of the Government are equally applicable to the officers of the nationalised banks. There is a clear border-line with reference to obeying oral instructions or looking for written instructions for such compliance. This should be clearly understood and disregard in both cases invites trouble for the public servant.