By Arun Pratap Singh
Garhwal Post Bureau
DEHRADUN, 16 May: Serious questions are once again being raised over the functioning of the officials of the Government after repeated irregularities were found in proposals being prepared for Cabinet meetings. The situation has become a matter of concern even for the Chief Secretary’s Office, as several proposals meant for consideration by the State Cabinet are reportedly being forwarded to the cabinet department despite glaring procedural deficiencies. What has made the issue more serious is that repeated instructions issued by Chief Secretary Anand Bardhan have so far failed to bring any visible improvement in the functioning of departments. It has also come to light that many proposals have been forwarded even without due signatures of minister and secretary concerned, which is shocking.
Despite the fact that the Cabinet matters are among the most sensitive and important aspects of governance, departmental authorities continue to display negligence in preparing and processing the proposals. The Cabinet proposals form the basis of major government decisions and policy matters, on which the Chief Minister and the entire Council of Ministers deliberate in detail. However, the officials, particularly from the Secretariat are reportedly forwarding such proposals without proper scrutiny, timely consultation or even mandatory approvals of the ministers in charge and the departmental secretaries.
Concerns regarding delays and irregularities in disposal of files and decision-making processes within the Uttarakhand Secretariat have surfaced several times in the past as well. This time, however, the issue directly concerns proposals being placed before the Cabinet, making the matter administratively significant.
It may be recalled that Chief Secretary Anand Bardhan had earlier also expressed concern over the issue and had written to senior government officials last year. In a letter issued on June 19, 2025, he had clearly pointed out that several departments were forwarding Cabinet proposals to consultation departments only at the last moment, just before the Cabinet meetings. As a result, adequate examination of such proposals was not possible and several deficiencies remained unresolved till the final stage.
The Chief Secretary had then directed that all Cabinet proposals should be made available to the Cabinet Department at least seven days before the scheduled Cabinet meeting so that they could be properly examined and necessary corrections could be carried out in time. The objective behind the direction was to ensure that only thoroughly scrutinised and error-free proposals were placed before the Cabinet.
However, recent developments suggest that the directions issued by the Chief Secretary have had little impact on the functioning of departments. This has compelled the Chief Secretary’s office to once again intervene in the matter. In a fresh communication sent to the senior officials of various departments, ten major deficiencies relating to Cabinet proposals have reportedly been identified and departments have been directed to rectify them immediately.
One of the most serious concerns highlighted in the latest communication is that several Cabinet proposals are being forwarded without the signatures of the ministers and departmental secretaries concerned. In effect, the proposals involving major policy decisions of the government are allegedly being processed without formal approval from the competent authorities. Administrative circles are viewing this as a serious violation of established procedures.
It has also been pointed out that many departments are not uploading Cabinet proposals on the Cabinet portal within the prescribed timeline. Consequently, consultation departments and the examining authorities do not get adequate time to study the proposals in detail. As a result, several proposals are reportedly reaching the Cabinet without proper scrutiny and examination.
The issue is not limited only to delays and missing signatures. Several proposals are also allegedly being forwarded without obtaining concurrence from consultation departments. Under established administrative procedures, views and approval of related departments are considered mandatory before any important proposal is finalised, but officials are reportedly bypassing even this essential requirement.
Another serious concern raised by the Chief Secretary relates to legal scrutiny. Several rules, draft bills and supporting documents attached with Cabinet proposals are allegedly being submitted without proper legal examination. Officials fear that decisions taken on such inadequately scrutinised proposals could later lead to legal complications and disputes.
The objections raised by the Chief Secretary also mention that in many Cabinet notes, the subject matter itself is not clearly explained. In certain cases, neither the objective of the proposal nor its likely impact is adequately described, making it difficult for Cabinet members to properly assess and decide on the matter.
The issue assumes further significance because the Chief Minister and the ministers have reportedly expressed displeasure on several occasions over defective and incomplete proposals placed before the Cabinet. During previous Cabinet meetings held recently, objections had been raised and officials had been instructed to improve procedural compliance and coordination. Despite this, the continuation of such lapses at the departmental level is raising questions over accountability and administrative coordination within the government.
Independent political observers believe that incomplete and poorly prepared proposals not only affect the quality of decision-making but also damage the credibility of governance. Cabinet proposals determine the administrative and policy direction of the state and any negligence in their preparation could adversely affect both governance and implementation of government decisions.
Attention is now focused on whether the latest directions issued by Chief Secretary Anand Bardhan succeed in bringing discipline and procedural improvement within departments or whether, as in the past, the instructions remain confined largely to official correspondence without substantial change on the ground.
