DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68026#0137
ROYAL COMMISSION UPON DECENTRALIZATION.
131
ever the major heads must rest with the Local Govern-
ment. The second condition has an administrative
aspect as well, but there are two financial reasons of
great importance which underlie it. One reason is
that in our budgets no separate provision is made for
leave allowances paid in India, and these allowances
are ordinarily met out of savings in the budget allot-
ments for salaries. As the charges for leave allow-
ances are very unequally distributed among the
different branches of the Service, it is essential that
the central authority of the province should have a
free hand in utilizing any lapses in the grants for
salaries and establishments. The other reason is that
the Local Government ought to have at its unfettered
disposal a certain section of the savings in its pro-
vincial budget as a reserve against excess expenditure
or special calls upon its purse. The practice—in some
provinces at least—has been to earmark informally the
net savings under salaries in this manner ; and it is a
distinct administrative convenience that this procedure
should be maintained. Subject to the stipulations
mentioned, the delegation of the power of re-appro-
priation in favour of their Heads of Departments
(including Commissioners) might reasonably be left
to the discretion of Local Governments.
44876'"'. How far, speaking generally, would you be
prepared to allow the delegation of specific financial
powers now vested in provincial Governments to
Heads of Departments and Commissioners, especially
as regards the grant of minor pensions, the creation of
temporary and permanent appointments, and decisions
in questions relating to travelling and other allowances ?
—Broadly speaking, the view hitherto taken by the
Government of India has been that Local Govern-
ments should not be given any general power of dele-
gating to subordinate authorities the powers which
they themselves have received by specific delegation.
It has been regarded as preferable that the matters in
regard to which the devolution of a Local Govern-
ment’s powers is permissible should be scheduled,
after due consideration of the arguments in each case.
Heads of Departments are stars of varying magnitude,
and it is difficult to indicate any general principles
which should regulate the delegation of powers to
them. As a general rule, it does not appear expedient
that they should exercise the authority of a Local
Government except in regard to non-gazetted officers
under their direct administrative control; and even
this general condition will require further limitations
with reference to the status of the different depart-
ments concerned. The Government of India have
recently sanctioned very numerous instances of devolu-
tion of authority to Departmental Heads in several
provinces ; and much still remains to be done. As
regards the specific points for delegation which are
covered by the latter part of this question, I may,
perhaps, be permitted to refer to paragraphs 11 to 50
of the “ Note on certain sections in the Civil Service
Regulations ” drawn up by Mr. Meyer for the Royal
Commission. The suggestions embodied in these
paragraphs, although there has not been time to
examine them fully in this department, proceed on
the general lines which the department has followed
in dealing with proposals for decentralization as
between Local Governments and the authorities
subordinate to them.
44877*. Would there be any objection to Commis-
sioners being given divisional budgets, within which,
subject to the general control of the provincial
Government, they might pass expenditure on Public
Works establishments, &c. ?—I am not quite clear
how far it is contemplated that the divisional budget
should extend. The Commissioner has a genera]
surveillance over the operations of a number of
departments in his division ; and it is difficult to
suggest any means by which he could share the finan-
cial responsibility for their working, which vests
primarily in the Heads of the respective Departments.
If, however, the intention is to give the Commissioner
certain powers of sanctioning establishment and con-
tingent charges within his division, there is no objec-
tion that I can see to his having a corresponding power
of allotting the necessary funds from a divisional
budget.
44878. (Mr. Meyer.) As regards the Secretariat
appointments, is it not exceedingly rare, that an
Under Secretary moves straight'up to Deputy Secre-
tary, and a.Deputy Secretary straight up to Secretary?
—Yes, very uncommon.
44879. Is it not absolutely exceptional ?—It is very
rare.
44880. So that usually an officer would hold his
appointment as Under Secretary for three years or so
and then go out and, later on possibly, come back as
Deputy Secretary ?—Yes.
44881. And similarly with regard to the Deputy
Secretary and Secretary ?—Yes.
44882. As regards Secretariat cases, may it be said
generally that, outside a very big scheme, such a one
as you have mentioned, where there is delay in any
case it is because it has to go to more than one depart-
ment, and it may come back more than once to the
Finance Department before it is settled ?—Yes, that
would be a case of frequent reference to the Finance
Department ; I described only the case of a single
reference.
44883. Have not the Administrative Departments
of the Government of India, for convenience, been
given certain financial powers ?—Yes.
44884. Practically speaking, the same powers as a
provincial Government ?—In respect of their own
expenditure, yes.
44885. With an exception relating to the personnel
of their own Secretariat establishments here ?—That
is so.
44886. As regards the inclusion ’of non-sanctioned
schemes in the budget, the strict rule in the Civil
Account Code is that no scheme shall appear in the
budget until it has been administratively sanctioned ?
—It is.
44887. Still, as a matter of convenience, you would
allow a scheme to pass if it had been under discussion,
and it appeared to you to be within measurable dis-
tance of being sanctioned ?—That is so.
44888. Suppose -a Local Government sent in its
budget and said, “ We propose to split up a district, or
to revise the pay of our clerical establishment ; we
have not yet thought the matter out, still we have put
down say five lakhs ; ” would you accept that ?—That
would be almost inevitably struck out.
44889. You give reasons against the suggestion that
the terms of the financial settlements with provincial
Governments should receive the sanction of the
Secretary of State and should not be altered without
his permission ; you mention the difficulties that that
would give rise to. In this connection, has not the Secre-
tary of State of late years shown a greater tendency to
interfere with the powers of the Government of India
as regards the provincial settlements than previously ?
—He has revived, in a recent case, a power which he
had previously enunciated some years ago and which
had not been used in the interval. That was a decision,
by, I think, Lord George Hamilton, that any revision
of a provincial settlement which involved a large
transfer to provincial sources of revenue which had
previously been imperial, should be submitted for his
consideration. In pursuance of that decision, the
Secretary of State has recently called for a further
examination of the settlement which we have just
made with the United Provinces.
44890. Not only that, but in 1903 was it not laid
down that the Government of India could not allot
funds to Local Governments for the purpose of com-
pensating them for loss of revenue consequent on
remission of taxation, without reference to the India
Office ?—There were a series of restrictions laid down
at that time.
44891. Also that they could not give large grants
for administrative reforms, and that they could not,
in fact, give a province any large money grant, save
for the purpose of restoring a depleted provincial
balance or maintaining the normal expenditure in case
of some special calamity such as famine ?—That is so ;
those were the orders of 1903.
44892. If this proposal that was put to you was
adopted, and any modification of the settlements with
Local Governments rested with the Secretary of State,
is there any probability that the Secretary of State
would look more favourably on increasing the resources
of the provincial Governments than the Government
of India has hitherto done?—It may be a mistake
—but it is the prevailing impression here—that
grants to Local Governments are scrutinized much
more carefully than is altogether necessary.
Mr. J. S.
• Meston.
6 Apr.. 1908.
33383
R 2
131
ever the major heads must rest with the Local Govern-
ment. The second condition has an administrative
aspect as well, but there are two financial reasons of
great importance which underlie it. One reason is
that in our budgets no separate provision is made for
leave allowances paid in India, and these allowances
are ordinarily met out of savings in the budget allot-
ments for salaries. As the charges for leave allow-
ances are very unequally distributed among the
different branches of the Service, it is essential that
the central authority of the province should have a
free hand in utilizing any lapses in the grants for
salaries and establishments. The other reason is that
the Local Government ought to have at its unfettered
disposal a certain section of the savings in its pro-
vincial budget as a reserve against excess expenditure
or special calls upon its purse. The practice—in some
provinces at least—has been to earmark informally the
net savings under salaries in this manner ; and it is a
distinct administrative convenience that this procedure
should be maintained. Subject to the stipulations
mentioned, the delegation of the power of re-appro-
priation in favour of their Heads of Departments
(including Commissioners) might reasonably be left
to the discretion of Local Governments.
44876'"'. How far, speaking generally, would you be
prepared to allow the delegation of specific financial
powers now vested in provincial Governments to
Heads of Departments and Commissioners, especially
as regards the grant of minor pensions, the creation of
temporary and permanent appointments, and decisions
in questions relating to travelling and other allowances ?
—Broadly speaking, the view hitherto taken by the
Government of India has been that Local Govern-
ments should not be given any general power of dele-
gating to subordinate authorities the powers which
they themselves have received by specific delegation.
It has been regarded as preferable that the matters in
regard to which the devolution of a Local Govern-
ment’s powers is permissible should be scheduled,
after due consideration of the arguments in each case.
Heads of Departments are stars of varying magnitude,
and it is difficult to indicate any general principles
which should regulate the delegation of powers to
them. As a general rule, it does not appear expedient
that they should exercise the authority of a Local
Government except in regard to non-gazetted officers
under their direct administrative control; and even
this general condition will require further limitations
with reference to the status of the different depart-
ments concerned. The Government of India have
recently sanctioned very numerous instances of devolu-
tion of authority to Departmental Heads in several
provinces ; and much still remains to be done. As
regards the specific points for delegation which are
covered by the latter part of this question, I may,
perhaps, be permitted to refer to paragraphs 11 to 50
of the “ Note on certain sections in the Civil Service
Regulations ” drawn up by Mr. Meyer for the Royal
Commission. The suggestions embodied in these
paragraphs, although there has not been time to
examine them fully in this department, proceed on
the general lines which the department has followed
in dealing with proposals for decentralization as
between Local Governments and the authorities
subordinate to them.
44877*. Would there be any objection to Commis-
sioners being given divisional budgets, within which,
subject to the general control of the provincial
Government, they might pass expenditure on Public
Works establishments, &c. ?—I am not quite clear
how far it is contemplated that the divisional budget
should extend. The Commissioner has a genera]
surveillance over the operations of a number of
departments in his division ; and it is difficult to
suggest any means by which he could share the finan-
cial responsibility for their working, which vests
primarily in the Heads of the respective Departments.
If, however, the intention is to give the Commissioner
certain powers of sanctioning establishment and con-
tingent charges within his division, there is no objec-
tion that I can see to his having a corresponding power
of allotting the necessary funds from a divisional
budget.
44878. (Mr. Meyer.) As regards the Secretariat
appointments, is it not exceedingly rare, that an
Under Secretary moves straight'up to Deputy Secre-
tary, and a.Deputy Secretary straight up to Secretary?
—Yes, very uncommon.
44879. Is it not absolutely exceptional ?—It is very
rare.
44880. So that usually an officer would hold his
appointment as Under Secretary for three years or so
and then go out and, later on possibly, come back as
Deputy Secretary ?—Yes.
44881. And similarly with regard to the Deputy
Secretary and Secretary ?—Yes.
44882. As regards Secretariat cases, may it be said
generally that, outside a very big scheme, such a one
as you have mentioned, where there is delay in any
case it is because it has to go to more than one depart-
ment, and it may come back more than once to the
Finance Department before it is settled ?—Yes, that
would be a case of frequent reference to the Finance
Department ; I described only the case of a single
reference.
44883. Have not the Administrative Departments
of the Government of India, for convenience, been
given certain financial powers ?—Yes.
44884. Practically speaking, the same powers as a
provincial Government ?—In respect of their own
expenditure, yes.
44885. With an exception relating to the personnel
of their own Secretariat establishments here ?—That
is so.
44886. As regards the inclusion ’of non-sanctioned
schemes in the budget, the strict rule in the Civil
Account Code is that no scheme shall appear in the
budget until it has been administratively sanctioned ?
—It is.
44887. Still, as a matter of convenience, you would
allow a scheme to pass if it had been under discussion,
and it appeared to you to be within measurable dis-
tance of being sanctioned ?—That is so.
44888. Suppose -a Local Government sent in its
budget and said, “ We propose to split up a district, or
to revise the pay of our clerical establishment ; we
have not yet thought the matter out, still we have put
down say five lakhs ; ” would you accept that ?—That
would be almost inevitably struck out.
44889. You give reasons against the suggestion that
the terms of the financial settlements with provincial
Governments should receive the sanction of the
Secretary of State and should not be altered without
his permission ; you mention the difficulties that that
would give rise to. In this connection, has not the Secre-
tary of State of late years shown a greater tendency to
interfere with the powers of the Government of India
as regards the provincial settlements than previously ?
—He has revived, in a recent case, a power which he
had previously enunciated some years ago and which
had not been used in the interval. That was a decision,
by, I think, Lord George Hamilton, that any revision
of a provincial settlement which involved a large
transfer to provincial sources of revenue which had
previously been imperial, should be submitted for his
consideration. In pursuance of that decision, the
Secretary of State has recently called for a further
examination of the settlement which we have just
made with the United Provinces.
44890. Not only that, but in 1903 was it not laid
down that the Government of India could not allot
funds to Local Governments for the purpose of com-
pensating them for loss of revenue consequent on
remission of taxation, without reference to the India
Office ?—There were a series of restrictions laid down
at that time.
44891. Also that they could not give large grants
for administrative reforms, and that they could not,
in fact, give a province any large money grant, save
for the purpose of restoring a depleted provincial
balance or maintaining the normal expenditure in case
of some special calamity such as famine ?—That is so ;
those were the orders of 1903.
44892. If this proposal that was put to you was
adopted, and any modification of the settlements with
Local Governments rested with the Secretary of State,
is there any probability that the Secretary of State
would look more favourably on increasing the resources
of the provincial Governments than the Government
of India has hitherto done?—It may be a mistake
—but it is the prevailing impression here—that
grants to Local Governments are scrutinized much
more carefully than is altogether necessary.
Mr. J. S.
• Meston.
6 Apr.. 1908.
33383
R 2