We can understand the concept of misconduct in public service better by classifying misconduct under distinctive categories. Public organizations classify misconduct as -

1. Administrative misconduct or misbehavior, or disobedience to lawful orders of superiors as it is termed.

2. Technical or procedural lapses, i.e. defective execution of work

3. Vigilance lapses involving moral turpitude i.e. disloyalty or infidelity exhibited in service performance. (either under prosecution or departmental Inquiry)

It is a case of disobedience of lawful authority or refusal by an employee to obey or comply with orders of superiors or non-adherence to conduct rules of the organization etc. Administrative misconduct is visible at the point of its occurrence and is reflected within the events, in which it takes place, generally as part of a single transaction or event like challenging the due authority of a superior by a subordinate, disobedience or refusal to carry out properly delegated duties, riotous behaviour, use of intemperate language, discourtesy shown to customers of the organization, late attendance, absence without leave etc. The hierarchical structure of administration depends on the smooth flow of commands from the top- stage by stage downwards. In this chain there can be no halting or obstructing points. If the flow stops at a particular point, there can be chain of effects and the entire system may cease to function properly. The strength of a chain made of several rings is equal to the strength of its weakest ring. A single bad worker may spoil the performance of an entire organization. Normally instances of this misconduct occur at the junior levels of the organization, i.e. amongst the operating staff.

Both public and private sector organizations recognize the need for putting down with deterrent punishment instances of such misbehaviour at the incipient level. It is essential to handle this phenomenon with such determination so that the climate that breeds this menace is not allowed to stretch within the organization and spread its disastrous effects. Unchecked misbehaviour on the part of a few employees can corrupt the system and end finally with the law of the jungle to engulf in the organization. This situation prevailed in the mid-seventies in certain organizations in West Bengal and Bihar infested with multiplicity of rival trade unions.

Effective measures to prevent this tendency from emerging are necessary and it must be directed diligently, through positive and preventive measures. Positive measures include the creation of better work atmosphere like provision of physical, environmental, and psychological amenities, intended to improve work efficiency. Employee motivation and developing a sense of belonging to the Institution amongst the workers is necessary to be created. Effective leadership and not bossism is the answer. All progressive corporate organizations depend on this preventive strategy, to effectively tackle this problem. Preventive steps include strict enforcement of discipline and imposing deterrent punishment on violators including dismissal from service. The imminent and sure threat of punishment and fear of loss of job acts as a deterrent, and an employee will think twice before stooping to take the law into his hands.

Technical or procedural lapses occur at the operational and supervisory levels due to ignorance, negligence, laziness or inefficiency in the performance of duties. Employee is entrusted to fabricate a product, but he generates a scrap. Though his intention was to produce the product. It was due to his imperfect knowledge or skill, or negligence or inefficiency the work turns into a scrap instead of a quality product. This is a technical or procedural lapse These normally are not occasioned on account of willful intent, but due to failure on the part of the employee to come up to the required level of efficiency and standards of performance. By way of an example the rules of the organization require reminders to be sent to all overdue debtors for more than 30 days. On account of slackness to observe this formality by an employee, debtor outstanding piles up for more than 60 days and swells to an astronomical figure undermining financial liquidity of the organization. This is a lapse and this lapse also adversely affects the interests of the organization. The reason for this lapse is negligence or slackness in the performance by an individual entrusted with this duty. There is no willful intention to violate any rule, but faulty performance due to ignorance, oversight or negligence. Though this is an administrative lapse, this should not be normally treated as misconduct, unless

• Where it is habitually committed or

• Such negligence results in substantial loss to the employer or

• Injury and loss to any 3rd parties in the course of performance of the job.

Progressive and professionally managed organizations adopt the preventive approach with referenced to procedural lapses and aim at securing zero-error percent performance. The tool of charge sheet and departmental enquiry are not resorted to. But in many public sector organizations like Nationalized Banks, charge sheeting of employees is resorted to for such lapses as a matter of routine and punishments are inflicted on them. This does not appear to be an effective remedy. In fact it acts counter productive. "MR so and so… has committed two mistakes and we have stopped his one increment," observed the administrative manager. "Oh this makes your organization to gain the amount equal to the sum of his one increment as a profit, but it also results in the partial or total loss of the sum of his entire future salary. As a consequence of this punishment, he is going to be frustrated and demotivated. In my opinion this is penny wise and pound foolish, as you have gained a part and lost of the total" is the answer of the HRD Manager. This statement does carry an element of truth. The employee is a part of the organization, and one does not ampute a part of the body unless it is totally damaged and thus is inevitable.Pre-placement training on the job will test the suitability of the employee for the job. If the employee is suitable for the job, he should be placed therein, otherwise placing him initially and thereafter charge sheeting him is not an ideal situation, as it serves the purposes neither of the employee, nor of the organization. These charge sheets are simply a helpless bureaucratic response to escape from a situation of plethora of failures and omissions that confront in an imperfect set up of an organization. Mend your tools and do not blame them. Can a surgeon or any of his assistants performing a heart surgery commit a procedural lapse? Can a pilot flying an aircraft with passengers on board commit an operational mistake? These are real life situations, where zero level failure has to be perforce ensured. Why not accept this goal universally to all business operations? The mission of zero level procedural lapses should be accepted as a Quality Norm and accepted jointly by the employer and the employees as their common goal.

Employee negligence may sometimes merely result in a simple inconvenience or delay to the organization. It may, in other circumstances result in minor or substantial damage or financial loss. In extreme cases it may also lead to unfortunate and major inconvenience or damage to customers or to third parties, including physical injury to their body or loss of their lives.

Gross negligence is legally defined as the omission to do something which the reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would not do, or do something which a prudent and reasonable man would not. Negligence under the civil law, whether causing harm short of death or death is fairly well defined and compensatory damages awarded to restore, as far as possible, the sufferer or his relatives by monetary award, as satisfaction for the harm caused. However, under the criminal law, negligence resulting in death may jeopardize the future of an employee beyond the punishment he has to suffer.

The short title of Section 304-A of The Indian Penal Code reads: "Causing death by negligence" The full section says - "Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

When an employs fails to adhere to standards of loyalty and fidelity, or commits crimes under the Prevention of Corruption Act, or IPC he is no longer an asset, but a liability to the organization. He forfeits his good conscience and violates ethical norms to the detriment of the interests of the organization or to gain an undue benefit for himself. In this case, he is committing vigilance misconduct. Stray instances of bad judgement otherwise taken in bonafide circumstances can be condoned, but not a single instance of bad faith. Employment is a contract of utmost good faith. The employee is trusted upon and entrusted custody of valuable resources and sensitive data belonging to the organization as part of his job responsibilities. Breach of trust by the employee may render the organization to immense damage and jeopardy. Vigilance lapses are on account of an illegal intent of the mind. It is based on a reverse role, employee acting on unethical selfish motives to the detriment of he organization he is serving. Punishment here can be two-fold. Initially it may be from the employer resulting in dismissal and termination of the contract of employment, but ultimately it may also be from the law enforcing authority under the Indian Penal Code and in respect of public servants also under the Prevention of Corruption Act. As employment is based on utmost good faith, loyalty to the Organization is the bedrock of a service contract. There can be no role conflict in the performance of the duties. It should be with intent exclusively for protecting, safeguarding and promoting the interests of the organization.

PNB is a premier nationalised bank in the country and its web site provides information about vigilance management in the Bank. A few excerpts are mentioned below for information of all bank officers.

Vigilance activity in financial institutions is an integral part of the managerial function. The raison d'ętre of such activity is not to reduce but to enhance the level of managerial efficiency and effectiveness in the organisation. In Banks risk-taking forms an integral part of business. Therefore, every loss caused to the organisation, either in pecuniary or non-pecuniary terms, need not necessarily become the subject mater of a vigilance inquiry. It would be quite unfair to use the benefit of hindsight to question the technical merits of managerial decisions from the vigilance point of view. At the same time, it would be unfair to ignore motivated or reckless decisions, which have caused damage to the interests of the organisation. Therefore, a distinction has to be drawn between a business loss which has arisen as a consequence of a bona fide commercial decision, and an extraordinary loss which has occurred due to any malafide, motivated or reckless performance of duties. While the former has to be accepted as a normal part of business and ignored from the vigilance point of view, the latter has to be viewed adversely and dealt with under the extant disciplinary procedures."

The problem to distinguish between such cases will not arise, if a bottom-to-top approach is not made and investigation is conducted on beginning-to-end basis. The investigator will start reviewing from the beginning of the event investigated and review step by step chronologically as to what have taken place, against what should have been done. Lapses should be noted without reference to the subsequent consequences. If the lapses are serious or severe and they logically explain the adverse happening, the misconduct of the employee is established objectively.

When action is taken on an employee for committing misbehavior like refusal to obey administrative orders or for action involving moral turpitude like embezzlement etc., the other employees will not look at these actions with disfavour and hence these will not create an atmosphere of demoralization within an organization. A clearly visible misconduct willfully committed by the employee, as the cause and the consequent punishment as the effect are seen together and viewed by the other employees as a logical and justifiable development. It also forewarns them and acts as a deterrent from committal of such offences on their part.

But the position with reference to procedural lapses and consequent punishment inflicted for such lapses, other than those involving gross negligence resulting in serious damage, or chronic cases of employees habitually committing such lapses, falls on a different setting. In many cases there may not a willful committal of misconduct by the employee. The employee may not be even aware that a lapse has taken place in his performance. "If I do not take action on this file for six months, I face no problem, but if I take some steps and there creeps a controversy over an expenditure of even a very small amount incurred though with no wrongful intent on my part, I will be in trouble". This explains the situation. Non-performance is not punished, but performance with unintentional errors, though done sincerely, it is feared, will be penalized.

The risk is more while taking decisions. This leads to the belief that taking bold decisions is risky and playing the line of least resistance is safer. Indecision and procrastination come to rule the mindset of the employees consequently. This may in turn lead to poor customer service and consequent business stagnation.

Employees called upon to take critical decisions for the organization exercising powers delegated to them should follow a structured procedure. Proper records should be maintained giving the circumstances justifying that the decision taken is bonafide and was taken in the best interests of the organization when it was taken, after due consideration and taking into account all known aspects. A public servant is not only to be honest, but also should be seen to be honest. When called upon he must be in a position to satisfactorily explain his conduct and vindicate himself.

But where it is considered expedient to charge sheet the employee, the procedure for investigation, charge sheet and oral enquiry should be initiated. These processes are discussed in my literature on Departmental Inquiries in detail.