GENERAL STUDIES – II

GOVERNANCE
5. CITIZEN CHARTER
Citizen’s charter may be defined as a participatory arrived at agreement between
the citizen and a public agency, which lays down:
1. The standards at which the public agency will provide services to the citizens.
2. The remedy to be had in case of shortfalls in performance.

NEED FOR CITIZEN’S CHARTER

1. For making public service providers more accountable and responsive.

PEOPLE

LEGISLATURE

CC

MINISTER

CIVIL SERVANT

ACCOUNTABILITY DIAGRAM

2. In a Parliamentary democracy, civil servants are responsible to ministers, who in

turn are responsible to legislature, and legislatures responsible to people.
Legislature controls through making laws, voting budgets etc.., but this cant
substitute continuous monitoring required for implementing government
programmes. Citizens charter ensures the accountability of administration directly
to people.
3. Another type of accountability is imposed by judicial reviews. But it involves
cumbersome procedures and takes a lot of time. CC is a better way, ensuring
simple and quick responses by administration.
4. Cost effective: No separate machinery requires except a written commitment by
organisation and one officer to ensure its proper enforcement.
5. It helps preventing delays and red-tapism on part of administration. It clearly
mentions a time-frame within which administration has to deliver a particular


 service to the citizens. This helps saving time of an aggrieved person and his
harassment.
6. It fulfills the need for innovating a people friendly device to ensure administrative
accountability.
7. In 1990s, greater competition was infused in the environment for government
agencies. Citizens charter is seen as the best means to ensure that the
expectations of its customers are met.

BENEFITS OF CITIZENS CHARTER

1. Citizens come to know of organizational activities and procedures, and
performance. It facilitates transparency. Transparency reduces corruption and is
an aspect of Good Governance.
2. By laying down clear performance standards for a department responsible for
providing a service, it brings about accountability.
3. It leads to citizens friendliness and citizen conveniences. It tells the citizens
what is to be obtained from the organisation and when. Thus, again resulting in
good governance.
4. It is framed as well as evaluated participatory. So it is democratic.
5. If the citizens are satisfied, morale of the organization rises too.
6. It raises the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of public services, thus
raising resource-use economy.

THE INDIAN SCENARIO

Over the years, in India, significant progress has been made in the field of economic
development. This, along with a substantial increase in the literacy rate has made
Indian citizens increasingly aware of their rights. Citizens have become more
articulate and expect the administration not merely to respond to their demands
but also to anticipate them.

It was in this climate that a consensus began to evolve, since 1996, in the Government
on effective and responsive administration. At a Conference of Chief Ministers
of various States and Union Territories held on 24 May, 1997 in New Delhi,
presided over by the Prime Minister of India, an “Action Plan for Effective and
Responsive Government” at the Centre and State levels was adopted. One of the
major decision at that Conference was that the Central and State Governments would
formulate Citizen’s Charters, starting with those sectors that have a large public
interface (e.g., Railways, Telecom, Posts, Public Distribution Systems and the like).

These Charters were to include first, standards of service as well as the time limits
that the public can reasonably expect for service delivery, avenues of grievance


redressal and a provision for independent scrutiny through the involvement of citizen
and consumer groups.

The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances in

Government of India (DARPG) initiated the task of coordinating, formulating and
operationalising Citizen’s Charters. The guidelines for formulating the Charters as well
as a list of do’s and don’ts were communicated to various government
departments/organisations to enable them to bring out focused and effective charters.

The charters are expected to incorporate the following elements:-

1. Vision and Mission Statements;
2. Details of business transacted by the organisation;
3. Details of clients;
4. Details of services provided to each client group;
5. Details of grievance redressal mechanism and how to access it; and
6. Expectations from the clients.

Primarily an adaption of UK model, the Indian Citizen’s Charter was an additional

component of ‘expectations from the clients’ or in other words ‘obligations of the
users’. Involvement of consumer organisations, citizen groups, and other
stakeholders in the formulation of the Citizens Charters is emphasized to ensure that
the Citizens Charter meets the needs of the users. Regular monitoring, review and
evaluation of the Charters, both internal and through external agencies has been
enjoined.

Most of the national Charters are posted on the government’s websites and are
open to public scrutiny. The organisations with Citizens Charters have been advised
to give publicity to their Charters through such means as print/electronic media and
awareness campaigns.

PROBLEMS FACED IN IMPLEMENTING THE CHARTERS

Introduction of new concepts is always difficult in any organisation. Introduction and
implementation of the concept of Citizen’s Charter in the Government of India was
much more difficult due to old bureaucratic set up/procedures and the rigid
attitudes of the work force. The major obstacles encouraged in this initiative were:-
 The general perception of originations which formulated Citizen’s Charters was
that the exercise was to be carried out because there was a direction from above.
The consultation process was minimal or largely absent. It, thus, became one
of the routine activities of the organisation and had no focus;
 For any Charter to succeed the employees responsible for its implementation
should have proper training and orientation, as commitments of the Charter
cannot be expected to be delivered by a workforce that is unaware of the spirit

 and content of the Charter. However, in many cases, the concerned staff were
not adequately trained and sensitized;
 Sometimes, transfer and reshuffles of concerned officers at the crucial stages
of formulation/implementation of the Citizen’s Charter in an organisation
severely undermined the strategic process which were put in place and
hampered the progress of the initiative;
 Awareness campaigns to educate clients about the Charter were not conducted
systematically;
 In some cases, the standards/time norms of services mentioned in Citizen’s
Charter were either too lax or too tight and were, therefore, unrealistic thereby
creating an unfavorable impression on the clients of the Charter;
 The concept behind the Citizen’s Charter was not properly understood.
Information brochures, publicity materials, pamphlets produced earlier by the
organisations were mistaken for Citizen’s Charters.

CITIZENS RIGHT TO GRIEVANCE REDRESS BILL 2011

The Citizens Right to grievance Redress Bill 2011 marks the next milestone in the
government’s mission to enact a series of rights based legislations. Drawing on the
framework of the Right to Information Act, the objective of this Bill is to ensure that
the common man receives quick and efficient delivery of the goods and services to
which he is entitled and which may have been delayed for any reason whatsoever.

The other objective of this Bill is to ensure that a person who is denied a public good
or service to which he is entitled is able to take action against the person who is
denying that service on a mala fide ground (such as a demand for a bribe in
exchange for the service).

To this end the Bill directs all public authorities to draft and publish a ‘Citizens
Charter’. This document contains a list of functions and obligations that the public
authority can be reasonably expected to fulfil. In addition to this the name and
addresses of individuals responsible for the delivery of goods or the rendering of
services is to be provided as well. An illustrative list of contents for the ‘Citizens
Charter’ is provide in the Bill itself. This Charter is to be updated annually.

The Bill establishes new authorities at the level of the Block, District, State and the
Centre. A person can file a complaint with the ‘Grievance Redress Officer’ at the
level of the concerned department itself. Within fifteen days of the filing of this
complaint the aggrieved individual is to receive the public good or service he was
denied. If his complaint is not addressed within fifteen days the same is
automatically escalated to the level of the Head of Department along with an ‘Action


Taken Report’ detailing the reason for the lack of action on the complaint. The
Head of Department has to resolve the complaint within thirty days of receipt.

Appellate bodies to hear appeals from the Head of Department have been
constituted at the level of the State and the Centre. If an official is found to have
denied a service unfairly or in a mala fide manner then penalties can be imposed
against him.

In addition to this a new body called the ‘Information and Facilitation Centre’ shall
be established within each public authority to provide aid to any individual who
wishes to file a complaint. This body along with the Grievance Redress Officer
shall provide all necessary education and assistance to an aggrieved person.

Where it appears to the Head of the Department of the Public Authority that the
grievance complained of is indicative or representative of a corrupt act on the part of
the individual officer then it shall record the evidence in support of such conclusion
and shall initiate criminal proceedings against the official.

The existing mechanisms have proven to be inadequate when it comes to

redressing the grievances of citizens. Most of them are housed within the public
authority complained against, thereby leading to an ostensible conflict of
interest.

The Bill significantly strengthens the ability of the common man to demand delivery
of public goods and services. It further promises to ensure greater transparency
and accountability in the system by eliminating avenues for bureaucratic delays.

“The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and
Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011” is a step forward towards good
governance. The salient features of the Bill are:

1. RIGHT TO CITIZENS
It confers right on every individual citizen to time bound delivery of goods and
provision for services and Redressal of grievances.

2. PUBLICATION OF CITIZENS CHARTER

It requires every public authority to publish, within six months of the
commencement of the proposed legislation, a Citizens Charter specifying therein the
category of goods supplied and services rendered by it, the time within which
such goods shall be supplied or services be rendered the name and addresses of
individuals responsible as designated officers for the delivery of goods or rendering
of services.

3. INFORMATION AND FACILITATION CENTRE


It requires every Public Authority to establish information and facilitation centre for
efficient and effective delivery of services and redressal of grievances.

4. GRIEVANCE REDRESS OFFICER

It requires every public authority to designate Grievance Redress Officers in all
public authorities of the Central, State, district and sub-district levels,
municipalities, Panchayats etc. to enquire into and redress any complaints from
citizens in a timeframe not exceeding thirty days from the date of receipt of the
complaint.

5. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY
It provides that any individual aggrieved by a decision of the concerned Grievance
Redress Officer may, within thirty days, prefer an appeal to the Designated
Authority who shall dispose of such appeal within thirty days from the date of
receipt of such appeal. The Designated Authority shall be from outside the
concerned public authority.

6. STATE/CENTRAL PUBLIC GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

It provides for constitution of the State Public Grievance Redressal Commission
and the Central Public Grievance Redressal Commission consisting of Chief
Commissioners and other Commissioners.
It also provides that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Designated Authority
falling under the jurisdiction of the State Government may prefer an appeal to the
State Public Grievance Redressal Commission and any person aggrieved by the
decision of the Designated Authority falling under the jurisdiction of the Central
Government may prefer an appeal to the Central Public Grievance Redressal
Commission.

7. PENALTY AND COMPENSATION

It confers power upon the Designated Authority, the State Public Grievance
Redressal Commission and the Central Public Grievance Redressal
Commission to impose a lump-sum penalty, including compensation to the
complainant, against designated official responsible for delivery of goods and services
or Grievance Redress Officer for their failure to deliver goods or render services to
which the applicant is entitled, which may extend upto fifty thousand rupees which
shall be recovered from the salary of the official against whom penalty has been
imposed. It also provides that on the imposition of the penalty, the appellate
authority may, by order, direct that such portion of the penalty imposed under the
proposed legislation shall be awarded to the appellant, as compensation, not
exceeding the amount of penalty imposed, as it may deem fit.


8. DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ERRING OFFICIALS
It provides that if any public servant is found guilty of offence, the disciplinary
authority shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against such officer of the public
authority, who if proved to be guilty of a mala fide action in respect of any provision
of this Act, shall be liable to such punishment including a penalty as the disciplinary
authority may decide.

9. ACTION AGAINST CORRUPT PRACTICES

It provides that where it appears to the Designated Authority or the State Public
Grievance Redressal Commission or the Central Public Grievance Redressal
Commission that the grievance complained of is prima facie indicative of a corrupt
act or practice in terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, on the part of the
responsible officer of the public authority complained against then it shall record
such evidence as may be found in support of such conclusion and shall refer the
same to the appropriate authorities competent to take cognizance of such corrupt
practice.

10. APPEAL TO LOKPAL/LOKAYUKTA

It provides that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Central Public Grievance
Redressal Commission or the State Public Grievance Redressal Commission, which
contains the findings relating to corruption under Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, may prefer an appeal to the Lok Pal or Lokayukta, constituted under the
Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2011.

The above bill got lapsed with the end of 15th Lok Sabha. The present Union
Government is considering a Bill to guarantee time-bound delivery of services,
called the Right to Services Act, on the lines of the Acts already in place in
Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS

1. The Citizens’ Charter is an ideal instrument of organizational transparency and
accountability, but it has its own limitations. Identify the limitations and suggest
measures for greater effectiveness of the Citizens’ Charter. (15) (2018)
2. Though Citizens charters have been formulated by many public service delivery
organizations, there is no corresponding improvement in the level of citizen’s
satisfaction and quality of services being provided? Analyse. (10) (2013)