The Uttar Pradesh government has initiated a rigorous crackdown on corruption within the State Tax Department, directing top officials to identify officers with questionable conduct and poor performance records.
M Devraj , Principal Secretary (State Tax) has ordered all zonal commissioners and joint commissioners to compile a list of officers with tarnished reputations, particularly within the Flying Squad and Special Investigation Branch (SIB). During a recent review meeting, Devraj instructed that each district submit the name of at least one officer from the Flying Squad and SIB who has a history of corruption or poor performance.
Devraj conducted a zone-wise assessment of the department and urged the additional commissioners of Grade-1 and Grade-2 (SIB) to immediately report the names of the most corrupt or poorly performing officers within their zones.
He specified criteria to evaluate SIB and Flying Squad personnel, emphasising the need for accountability. This directive includes identifying officers with inadequate performance at the zonal level and categorizing them for further action.
For transparency and consistency, Devraj outlined performance standards specific to each department. SIB officers will be assessed on tax collection effectiveness, quality of case profiles, accuracy in reporting, and overall reputation.
Similarly, the Flying Squad will be evaluated on the volume of tax collected, the ratio of detected tax-evasive vehicles to those inspected, and the impact of e-way bill verification on tax collection. Additionally, officers' reputations within their zones will influence evaluations. Zonal officers are permitted to implement supplementary criteria to ensure accurate assessments.
The order has stirred anxiety and division among tax officials across the state. Officers argue that by targeting specific
positions-Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners, and Commercial Tax Officers-the directive implies that senior officials are exempt from scrutiny. This perception has fostered tension between lower-
level officers and their superiors.
Adding to the discord is the language used in the directive, particularly the term "bad." Officers expressed concern that the lack of a clear, standardised definition for "bad" performance leaves room for subjective interpretation.
Some officials believe that alleged corruption cases should be substantiated through a formal investigation process, as detailed in their annual confidential reports.
Officers contend that accusations of corruption should undergo due investigation before any label is affixed.
The controversy centers on the need for fair evaluation processes that distinguish between documented misconduct and mere allegations. Some senior officials argue that the broad criteria may under-
mine morale within the department and potentially overlook the need for systemic reforms.
As the state's fight against corruption in the State Tax Department intensifies, this directive marks a significant move towards greater accountability but also reveals underlying tensions.
How this list will impact the careers of implicated officers and the department's operational morale remains to be seen.
