Khadija Khan
The incident has drawn severe criticism from members of the JKAS fraternity and political figures, who have called for an impartial inquiry.
The issue is not whether a senior officer can question a junior. Senior officers must be able to demand explanations, identify shortcomings and ensure that government programmes are implemented properly. The real question is whether they exercise that authority with the care, fairness and professionalism expected of public servants.
Government service involves hierarchy, assigned responsibilities and accountability. However, hierarchy should ensure that institutions function efficiently, not create a culture in which one person’s position makes another’s dignity disposable.
The 1956 Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules establish a framework for disciplinary action against employees covered by them. Rule 30 provides for penalties ranging from censure and withholding increments to dismissal and removal from service. Such provisions are essential to ensuring accountability.
Disciplinary action must, however, follow the relevant rules and procedures. A disagreement in a meeting, an unsatisfactory explanation or an objection to how someone is addressed cannot, by itself, justify punishment. The facts, nature of the alleged misconduct and prescribed procedure must all be considered.
A senior officer must be able to correct an employee without humiliating them, just as a subordinate must be able to explain a decision without fearing that professional disagreement will jeopardise their career. When disciplinary measures become instruments of personal displeasure, their credibility suffers.
It is also important to recognise that different services operate under different legal and disciplinary frameworks. The applicable authority and procedure must be determined by the officer’s service and the action proposed.
Rules exist because authority cannot be left entirely to individual discretion. They guard against arbitrariness and ensure that power is exercised within established limits. No officer should be above the procedures that legitimise their authority.
Administrative performance is often measured through files cleared, targets achieved, schemes implemented and meetings held. While these indicators matter, they do not offer a complete picture of governance. The way officials treat one another also reflects the quality of the institutions they serve.
The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, require officers to maintain integrity, remain devoted to their duties and conduct themselves in a manner befitting members of the service. Rule 3 sets standards concerning ethical conduct, impartiality, accountability and courtesy. These principles must be demonstrated in everyday interactions, particularly during disagreements.
Review meetings can be demanding. A senior officer may have legitimate concerns about Mission YUVA’s implementation, interdepartmental coordination or the role assigned to a particular agency. Asking difficult questions is part of administrative responsibility, just as providing clear answers is a reasonable expectation.
But questioning someone’s work is different from attacking their dignity. If a junior officer gives an incorrect explanation, the appropriate response is to identify the mistake, seek supporting evidence and issue clear instructions. If an assigned duty has not been performed, the failure should be addressed through established procedures. Personal insults neither improve decisions nor make government programmes more effective.
The ability to disagree without losing respect is a mark of professional maturity. Authority is easy to exercise when everyone agrees; leadership is tested when someone offers an unwelcome explanation, questions an interpretation or points out an oversight.
A healthy administration must allow such exchanges. Junior officers often work closely with the practical challenges of implementing programmes, and their observations can help senior officials identify problems that files and progress reports may not reveal. If employees fear speaking frankly, crucial information may never reach decision-makers.
Fairness also requires that everyone involved be assessed objectively. Respecting a subordinate does not exempt them from professional standards, just as disagreeing with a superior does not automatically amount to misconduct. Evidence, proportionality and due process must apply equally to all.
The involvement of a woman makes the issue particularly significant in the broader context of women’s experiences in professional settings. Nevertheless, the matter must be approached carefully. While the allegations warrant a thorough investigation, the fact that the person subjected to abusive language is a woman does not, by itself, establish gender-based misconduct or a violation of a particular law.
It does, however, underline the importance of ensuring that women can work in public institutions without fear of humiliation, intimidation or professional retaliation.
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, provides a framework for preventing and addressing sexual harassment, including through internal committees and prescribed complaint procedures. However, abusive or insulting language does not automatically constitute sexual harassment under the Act; its applicability depends on the alleged conduct, circumstances and statutory requirements. Other workplace misconduct may need to be addressed under service rules or appropriate grievance procedures.
Accountability must rest on the correct legal framework, not merely the intensity of public reaction.
The central principle remains clear: employees should not have to endure degrading treatment because the person in charge holds a higher rank. Women in public service should be judged on their competence, integrity and performance, not on their willingness to tolerate behaviour unacceptable in a professional environment.
The power imbalance between a senior officer and a junior colleague can make reporting misconduct particularly difficult. Employees may fear negative performance reviews, undesirable transfers, disciplinary action or long-term career consequences for challenging someone who influences their professional future. Even without actual retaliation, such fears can discourage legitimate complaints.
Grievance procedures must therefore be accessible, fair and credible. Employees should know where to report inappropriate behaviour, how complaints will be handled and what safeguards protect them against retaliation. Allegations must be examined impartially, with confidentiality maintained where required.
Workplace dignity should never depend on a supervisor’s temperament. It must be protected by institutional standards that apply to everyone. Government offices must make room for dissent, dialogue and accountability, not abuse and threats.
