All-India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968

(General Studies II – Polity section – Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary—Ministries and Departments of the Government; Pressure Groups and Formal/Informal Associations and their Role in the Polity.)

• The suspension of two Kerala IAS officers, N. Prashant and K. Gopalakrishnan, for alleged violations of the All-India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, has raised pertinent questions about the conduct of civil servants, the adequacy of existing service rules, and the use of social media by officers.
• These cases highlight the need for a review of the rules to ensure clarity and fairness.

The Charges Against Officers –

1. Against N. Prashant:
   • Accused of making derogatory statements on social media against a senior IAS officer, allegedly undermining the public image of the State’s administrative machinery.
   • Claimed that baseless news reports were orchestrated against him.
2. Against K. Gopalakrishnan:
   • Accused of creating a religion-based WhatsApp group, ‘Mallu Hindu Officers,’ which was alleged to promote communal disunity among IAS officers.
   • Claimed his phone was hacked but failed to provide credible evidence and had reset the phone before investigation.

Relevant Rules Under AIS Conduct Rules, 1968 –

1. Code of Conduct: Uphold constitutional values, maintain ethics, integrity, and political neutrality.
   • Officers must not adversely criticize government policies in public media.
2. Social Media Usage: Officers are allowed to participate in public media only for the bonafide discharge of duties. Criticism or actions that undermine the government’s policies are prohibited.
3. Ambiguity in Conduct: Officers must avoid conduct that is ‘unbecoming of a member of the service’, a term open to subjective interpretation.

Issues Highlighted –

1. Lack of Specific Social Media Guidelines: The rules do not explicitly define acceptable use of social media, creating ambiguity in what constitutes a violation.
   • Officers are unclear about their rights to defend themselves against defamatory allegations online.
2. Broad Interpretation of ‘Unbecoming of an Officer’: The omnibus clause is vague and prone to misuse or misinterpretation.
   • Enforcement often reflects hierarchical biases, leaving junior officers vulnerable to arbitrary action.
3. Blurred Lines Between Personal and Official Life: Increasing use of social media blurs boundaries, making it difficult for officers to separate personal opinions from official responsibilities.
4. Lack of Safeguards Against Misuse: Senior officials and governments have disproportionate power in enforcing these rules, necessitating protections for junior officers.

Recommendations for Review and Reform –

1. Explicit Social Media Guidelines:  Define acceptable and prohibited content for social media, covering both official and personal contexts.
   • Include provisions allowing officers to respond to defamatory campaigns concerning their official duties.
2. Clarification of ‘Unbecoming of an Officer’:  Develop an illustrative list of behaviors deemed unbecoming based on past cases.
   • Limit the scope for subjective interpretation to ensure consistency and fairness.
3. Training on Responsible Social Media Use: Conduct mandatory workshops for officers, particularly younger ones, on balancing anonymity and effective use of social media to disseminate government initiatives responsibly.
4. Mechanism for Redressal: Introduce an impartial mechanism for officers to contest disciplinary actions related to social media and conduct rules.
5. Promoting Anonymity: Reinforce the importance of anonymity in official communications to uphold the integrity and impartiality of civil services.
6. Strengthening Rule Enforcement: Ensure that disciplinary actions are transparent, non-discriminatory, and free from political or hierarchical bias.