When job security becomes a comfort zone, ordinary citizens pay the price.
By Vaibhav Marwaha
Imagine standing in a bank for hours to complete a simple transaction, only to be treated rudely by an employee who appears least interested in helping you.
Imagine being stuck in traffic while an ambulance carrying a critically ill patient struggles to find a way through, even when traffic violations are happening right in front of the authorities responsible for controlling the road.
Imagine visiting a government office for a basic service and being sent from one desk to another, with nobody willing to take responsibility for resolving your problem.
These are the kinds of experiences that raise an uncomfortable but important question:
Why are government employees not held accountable for their performance in the same way that employees in the private sector are?
This is not an argument against government employees. India has many honest, hardworking, competent public servants who work under difficult conditions and deserve respect.
The real question is whether our system does enough to distinguish those who perform their duties exceptionally well from those who repeatedly fail the citizens they are employed to serve.
And if it does not, why should the public continue to pay the price?
1. Job Security Is a Right, but Is It Becoming a Shield Against Accountability?
One of the biggest attractions of a government job in India is its stability.
A permanent government position can offer structured salary progression, allowances, retirement benefits and substantial protection against arbitrary termination. The exact benefits and service conditions vary by department, role and employment category.
For millions of Indians, this stability is understandably attractive.
However, an important question arises: When an employee enjoys considerable job security, what mechanisms ensure that the quality of their work remains consistently high?
In the private sector, poor performance can have serious consequences. Employees may face performance improvement plans, missed promotions, reduced bonuses or, in some circumstances, termination.
Government departments also have disciplinary procedures and performance-related mechanisms. The problem is not necessarily that accountability measures do not exist; it is whether they are implemented consistently, transparently and effectively.
When an employee repeatedly delays work, behaves inappropriately with the public or fails to fulfil essential responsibilities without facing meaningful consequences, the system sends the wrong message.
It suggests that the consequences of poor performance may be less serious than the consequences faced by employees in many competitive private-sector workplaces.
Over time, this can create a dangerous mindset:
My salary will arrive on time. My benefits will continue. My career will move forward. Why should I go beyond the bare minimum?
Not every government employee thinks this way. But any system that allows persistent underperformance to go unchallenged risks encouraging exactly this attitude.
Job security should protect employees from arbitrary decisions, not protect poor performance from scrutiny.
2. Salary Increases and Allowances Should Come With Greater Responsibility
Government employees are entitled to fair compensation. Salary revisions and allowances are legitimate parts of employment, particularly when living costs rise.
But there is a fundamental principle that should apply to every organisation, public or private:
As compensation and benefits increase, the expectation of professional responsibility should remain equally strong.
When employees receive salary increases, promotions and additional benefits, citizens should reasonably expect reliable service, professional behaviour and improved efficiency.
Consider the difference between two employees.
Employee A arrives on time, treats citizens respectfully, resolves problems efficiently and takes ownership of difficult cases.
Employee B repeatedly delays work, provides incomplete information, behaves rudely and avoids responsibility whenever a problem arises.
If both employees receive similar career progression regardless of their actual performance, what incentive does the system create?
It risks demotivating the first employee while allowing the second to continue without sufficient pressure to improve.
A fair performance system should recognise excellence, identify weaknesses and address persistent failure.
It should not reward seniority while treating actual contribution as an afterthought.
The public does not expect every government employee to work miracles. It expects them to do their jobs properly.
That is not an unreasonable demand.
3. The Bank Employee Who Forgets Who the Customer Is
Banks are among the most important points of contact between citizens and the formal economy.
People visit bank branches to deposit their savings, resolve account problems, update documents, obtain financial services and address urgent transactions.
For many senior citizens, pensioners and people unfamiliar with digital banking, a branch visit is not a convenience. It is a necessity.
Yet, when a customer encounters an employee who is dismissive, unnecessarily rude or unwilling to explain a process, the experience can be deeply frustrating.
Of course, bank employees can face heavy workloads, staff shortages, demanding customers and strict regulatory requirements. These pressures deserve recognition.
But workload cannot become a permanent excuse for unprofessional behaviour.
A customer asking a legitimate question should not feel as though they are asking for a personal favour.
The employee is performing a professional responsibility, and the customer deserves respectful treatment.
What should change?
Banks should introduce or strengthen measurable service standards, including:
- Customer waiting times and complaint-resolution periods.
- Regular assessments of service quality and professional conduct.
- Clear procedures for reporting and investigating staff misconduct.
- Recognition for employees who consistently deliver excellent customer service.
- Targeted training for employees who struggle with communication, technology or updated procedures.
Customer feedback should be considered alongside workload, staffing levels and the complexity of cases.
The objective should not be to punish employees for every dissatisfied customer. It should be to ensure that repeated, substantiated failures lead to improvement and, where necessary, proportionate disciplinary action.
Public trust is built one interaction at a time. Banks should treat that trust as an essential part of their performance.
4. Traffic Police: When Inaction Can Cost a Life
Traffic management offers an even more serious example because the consequences of poor enforcement can extend beyond inconvenience.
Consider a busy intersection.
Vehicles are moving in every direction. Some drivers are attempting to take shortcuts by driving on the wrong side. Others block junctions, ignore traffic signals or occupy space that should remain clear.
An ambulance approaches, its siren sounding.
The people inside that ambulance may be racing against time.
Now ask a simple question: What should the traffic police officer do?
The answer should be obvious.
The officer should assess the situation, clear a path for the emergency vehicle as safely and quickly as possible, direct traffic and take appropriate action against dangerous violations.
Yet, when enforcement is inconsistent or officers fail to respond effectively, the consequences fall on everyone else.
Commuters lose time. Law-abiding drivers become frustrated. Dangerous driving goes unchallenged. And in the worst circumstances, emergency medical care may be delayed.
We must be careful not to judge every traffic officer from a single incident. Officers often work in difficult weather, manage chaotic roads and face genuine safety risks. A traffic jam may also be caused by road design, inadequate infrastructure, poor traffic planning or a sudden emergency rather than an officer’s failure.
Nevertheless, these challenges make professional competence and effective supervision more important, not less.
Should traffic police performance be measured?
Absolutely.
Relevant measures could include:
- Response times when emergency vehicles are blocked.
- Action taken against wrong-side driving and dangerous violations.
- Effectiveness in clearing intersections and managing congestion.
- Attendance, deployment and compliance with assigned duties.
- Public complaints, supported by evidence and investigated fairly.
The purpose should be to assess what officers can reasonably control, rather than holding them responsible for every traffic problem.
And there is one non-negotiable priority: Emergency vehicles must be given a safe and timely passage.
If an officer repeatedly fails to perform essential duties, that failure should be investigated. If the officer requires better training, provide it. If the problem is inadequate staffing or equipment, address it. If there is proven negligence, take appropriate action.
A uniform should represent responsibility, not merely authority.
5. The Bigger Problem: A System That Can Reward Tenure More Than Performance
The issue goes beyond banks and traffic police.
It can arise anywhere a public employee has significant responsibility but weak incentives to deliver good service.
Consider the citizen visiting a municipal office to resolve a property-related issue.
Consider a person waiting for a government document that should have been processed weeks ago.
Consider someone making repeated visits because one official says a document is missing while another provides different instructions.
In each case, the citizen loses something valuable: time, money, productivity and sometimes peace of mind.
The deeper problem is that citizens often have limited alternatives when dealing with essential government services.
A customer unhappy with one private business may choose another. But a citizen cannot simply switch to a different municipal authority, traffic department or government office.
This imbalance makes accountability even more important.
When an organisation provides an essential service and citizens have little choice but to depend on it, the organisation has a greater responsibility to establish reliable service standards.
The government is not an ordinary service provider. It is responsible for delivering services that citizens fund through taxes and other public revenues.
Public employees are not personally indebted to every citizen, nor should they be expected to tolerate abuse. But their institutions must be answerable for the quality, fairness and timeliness of the services they deliver.
That is what public service means.
6. Why Is There No Regular, Meaningful Performance Review?
To be clear, performance reviews do exist in parts of India’s government system. Annual performance assessments, disciplinary rules, vigilance mechanisms and citizen grievance systems are among the tools used to oversee public employees.
The more relevant question is whether these systems consistently identify and correct poor performance at the level where citizens experience it.
A performance review should be more than paperwork completed once a year.
It should answer five important questions:
- Is the employee fulfilling the responsibilities of the role?
- Is the quality of work meeting the required standard?
- Does the employee treat the public professionally?
- Are complaints investigated and resolved appropriately?
- Has the employee improved after receiving feedback or training?
If the answers repeatedly reveal serious shortcomings, the organisation should act.
That action need not immediately mean termination.
It could begin with counselling, targeted training, closer supervision or a formal performance improvement plan.
Where serious misconduct or persistent underperformance is established, proportionate disciplinary consequences should follow in accordance with applicable service rules and due process.
Equally important, employees should be able to challenge inaccurate complaints, biased evaluations or unfair disciplinary action.
Accountability must be firm, but it must also be fair.
Without reliable measurement, performance management becomes a formality. Without meaningful consequences, even a well-designed system can lose its credibility.
7. Should Government Employees Face Layoffs Like Private-Sector Employees?
This is where the debate becomes particularly interesting.
Some people argue that government employees should face the same threat of job loss as employees in the private sector.
The argument is understandable: if a person knows that persistent underperformance can have serious consequences, perhaps that person will have a stronger incentive to perform.
However, simply copying private-sector layoffs would not necessarily solve the problem.
Government employment has a distinctive purpose. Public employees must sometimes make difficult decisions, enforce unpopular rules and resist political or private pressure. Reasonable job protections can help them act independently and lawfully.
If dismissal becomes too easy or depends on the preferences of powerful individuals, accountability could turn into intimidation.
The objective should therefore be neither unlimited job security nor arbitrary termination.
It should be security with responsibility.
An employee who performs well, follows the law and serves the public professionally should enjoy fair protection.
An employee who repeatedly fails to perform essential duties should not be guaranteed an unquestioned career merely because the position is permanent.
A credible system would combine:
- Regular, evidence-based performance evaluations.
- Clear and measurable standards for each role.
- Training and support to address genuine skill gaps.
- Performance-linked recognition and career progression.
- Transparent disciplinary procedures for serious or repeated failures.
- Fair opportunities to respond to complaints and appeal decisions.
- Lawful removal procedures for substantiated cases of persistent underperformance or misconduct.
This would protect honest employees while giving underperformers a clear reason to improve.
The goal is not to create fear in the workplace. It is to create a culture in which responsibility is taken seriously.
8. The Skills Gap: Why Experience Alone Is Not Enough
Another issue worth discussing is professional competence.
The world has changed dramatically over the past two decades.
Digital platforms, data analytics, artificial intelligence, online grievance systems and changing citizen expectations have transformed the way services can be delivered.
Public institutions must adapt to these changes.
An employee who was trained years ago may need new skills to perform the same job effectively today.
A bank employee may need better digital literacy and customer-service skills. A traffic officer may require updated training in traffic technology, emergency response and evidence-based enforcement. An administrative employee may need to understand digital records, online service delivery and time-bound grievance resolution.
The solution is not to assume that older employees are incapable or that younger employees are automatically more competent.
Nor should qualifications alone be treated as proof of competence.
What matters is whether an employee can perform the job effectively.
What should the government do?
It should establish continuous learning as a normal part of public employment.
Training should not be a box to tick before an employee returns to the same working habits.
Instead, institutions should evaluate whether training improves actual performance.
For example:
- Can the employee use the required software independently?
- Can the employee explain procedures accurately?
- Has the number of avoidable errors declined?
- Are citizens receiving faster and more reliable service?
- Can the employee handle emergencies and unusual situations competently?
A government job should not be a place where skills stop developing once recruitment is complete.
Recruitment establishes the starting point. Continuous learning and demonstrated performance should determine professional growth.
9. The Citizen Is Paying the Price
Ultimately, this debate is not about whether government employees have comfortable working conditions.
It is about whether the public receives value from the institutions it depends on.
When an employee delays a task unnecessarily, someone may lose a day’s wages.
When a customer is forced to make repeated visits to a bank, that customer loses productive time.
When traffic enforcement fails, commuters face congestion and dangerous driving.
When an ambulance cannot move through traffic promptly, the stakes may become far more serious.
These costs are rarely recorded on an employee’s performance sheet. Yet they are real.
The citizen absorbs them.
And unlike an organisation that can change suppliers, the citizen may have no practical alternative.
This is why public accountability cannot depend entirely on individual goodwill.
Good employees should not have to compensate indefinitely for a weak system. Citizens should not have to rely on luck to receive competent service.
The institution itself must be designed to deliver results.
10. What Should Change? Seven Reforms That Could Make a Difference
Rather than limiting the debate to criticism, India needs a practical framework for improving public-sector performance.
Here are seven reforms worth considering.
1. Introduce measurable service standards
Every public-facing role should have clear expectations regarding service quality, response times, accuracy and professional conduct.
These standards should reflect the actual responsibilities and working conditions of the position.
2. Conduct regular performance reviews
Reviews should take place at defined intervals and include evidence of actual work, not merely a supervisor’s general impression.
The process should identify strong performers as well as employees who require improvement.
3. Make public complaints easier to register
Citizens should have access to simple, transparent grievance mechanisms.
Complaints should receive tracking numbers, clear resolution timelines and explanations when deadlines cannot be met.
4. Link career progression to performance
Seniority may remain relevant, but it should not be the only meaningful consideration.
Professional competence, integrity, service quality, skill development and demonstrated responsibility should also influence promotions and recognition, subject to the rules governing each service.
5. Train employees continuously
Training should address real workplace challenges, from digital systems and customer communication to emergency management and ethical conduct.
Its effectiveness should be measured by improvements in performance.
6. Use technology to improve transparency
Digital records can help track applications, processing times, pending cases and grievance resolution.
For traffic management, appropriate technology can support enforcement, improve incident response and provide evidence for investigating complaints.
Technology should strengthen accountability, not become another layer of bureaucracy.
7. Enforce consequences fairly and consistently
Repeated, substantiated negligence should trigger a defined process.
Depending on the circumstances, this could involve coaching, formal warnings, performance improvement plans or disciplinary proceedings.
Serious misconduct should be addressed under applicable rules, with due process for the employee.
At the same time, employees who consistently deliver excellent service should receive recognition and opportunities for growth.
The principle is simple: reward good work, correct poor work and hold serious misconduct accountable.
11. We Must Also Hold the System’s Leadership Accountable
There is one more important point.
Poor public service is not always the fault of the employee standing behind a counter or directing traffic.
Sometimes, the real causes are inadequate staffing, outdated equipment, excessive administrative procedures, unclear responsibilities, poor supervision or unrealistic workloads.
A traffic officer cannot solve every congestion problem if an intersection is badly designed and there are insufficient personnel.
A bank employee cannot independently resolve every service issue if the necessary systems are unavailable or management has failed to provide adequate staffing.
An administrative worker cannot process an application efficiently if the rules are contradictory or approvals are unnecessarily complicated.
Therefore, accountability must operate at every level.
Frontline employees should be responsible for what they can reasonably control. Supervisors should be responsible for oversight and support. Department heads should be accountable for operational performance. Policymakers should examine whether the rules, budgets and institutional structures allow services to function effectively.
Otherwise, performance reviews risk becoming a way to blame junior employees for problems created by the system.
The objective should be to identify the actual cause of failure and correct it.
That is how a culture of accountability becomes sustainable.
12. Respect for Public Servants Must Go Hand in Hand With Accountability
This argument should not be misunderstood as hostility towards everyone working in government.
India needs competent public servants. It needs honest police officers, helpful bank employees, efficient administrators, dedicated teachers, committed doctors and professionals who put public welfare before personal convenience.
Many employees work sincerely under demanding conditions. They deserve fair compensation, adequate resources, professional respect and protection from political interference and abusive citizens.
But respect is not the same as unquestioning acceptance.
A citizen can respect the institution of the police while questioning an officer’s failure to act.
A customer can respect a bank while demanding professional service from its employees.
A person can appreciate the importance of government employment while asking whether public money is producing the outcomes it should.
In fact, fair accountability can strengthen respect for public institutions.
When citizens see that complaints are investigated, errors are corrected and excellent employees are recognised, their confidence in the system grows.
When they see repeated failures without meaningful consequences, that confidence deteriorates.
Public service deserves respect. Public office also carries responsibility. Neither should exist without the other.
Conclusion: It Is Time to Move From Job Security to Performance Security
India cannot build efficient public institutions merely by recruiting qualified people and providing them with stable employment.
It must also create an environment in which employees continue learning, take responsibility for their work and understand that public service has measurable obligations.
A permanent job should not mean permanent immunity from scrutiny.
Salary revisions should not be disconnected from service expectations.
Promotions should not be based solely on the passage of time.
And citizens should not have to tolerate avoidable delays, disrespectful behaviour or repeated negligence simply because they have no alternative provider.
The answer is not indiscriminate layoffs, public humiliation or hostility towards government employees.
The answer is a stronger system of performance measurement, continuous training, transparent grievance redressal, fair rewards and proportionate consequences.
A government employee should be able to work without the constant fear of arbitrary dismissal. But a citizen should also be able to expect that the employee will perform their duties professionally.
These two expectations are not contradictory.
They are essential to a functioning public institution.
After all, government employees are paid to serve the public, and the public deserves to be served well.
The next time a citizen waits unnecessarily at a counter, encounters dangerous traffic violations or watches an ambulance struggle through a blocked road, we should ask more than who is to blame for that particular incident.
We should ask what the system is doing to prevent the next one.
Because a country cannot achieve administrative excellence when accountability is optional.
The real reform India needs is not to make government jobs less secure for everyone. It is to make poor performance less comfortable, excellent performance more rewarding, and public service more accountable to the people.
The ultimate measure of a public institution is not how secure its employees feel, but how reliably it serves its citizens.