Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan’s 12 Types of Bureaucrats: File Throwers, File Sitters and Other Workplace Habits Under Scrutiny
Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan has used humour and cartoons to deliver a pointed message to India’s senior bureaucracy, drawing attention to workplace habits that can undermine administrative efficiency, professional conduct and accountability. During a performance review meeting of government secretaries in New Delhi on October 27, the 1987-batch IAS officer reportedly presented a series of illustrations depicting 12 types of bureaucrats, highlighting practices ranging from delaying files and unnecessarily escalating decisions to poor meeting discipline and inappropriate workplace behaviour.
The presentation, delivered before senior officials representing various Union government departments, reportedly left several officers uncomfortable. Yet its underlying purpose was serious: to encourage government secretaries to examine their working methods, respect colleagues’ time and ensure that bureaucratic procedures facilitate governance rather than obstruct it.
Several illustrations were reportedly drawn from the work of celebrated cartoonist R K Laxman, whose observations of Indian public life frequently exposed the contradictions and shortcomings of officialdom. By using satire to address familiar administrative problems, Somanathan sought to draw attention to conduct that conventional instructions and formal reviews may not always adequately address.
From File Throwers to File Sitters: The Bureaucratic Habits Under Scrutiny
The presentation reportedly categorised bureaucrats according to 12 distinct workplace behaviours. Although the complete official list has not been made publicly available in the reported account, several categories illustrate the administrative concerns highlighted during the meeting.
One category comprised officers who throw files or behave rudely towards their subordinates. Such conduct raises questions about workplace discipline, professional courtesy and the manner in which authority is exercised within government departments.
At the other end of the spectrum are officers who allow files to remain pending without taking timely decisions. Commonly described as file sitters, such officials can slow down administrative processes, delay approvals and create avoidable bottlenecks in the delivery of government services.
The presentation also reportedly highlighted officers who refer matters to ministers unnecessarily, even when decisions fall within their own delegated authority. Such practices can burden political executives with routine administrative matters while prolonging decisions that should be taken at the appropriate official level.
Meeting management was another area of concern. Officers who schedule meetings after 7 pm, summon staff to work on Saturdays but arrive late themselves, or otherwise disregard their colleagues’ time were among the examples cited.
A particularly sensitive category concerned officers who ask women colleagues to stand unnecessarily close while documents are being shown. The example drew attention to the importance of professional boundaries, respectful conduct and appropriate workplace behaviour.
While the reported presentation covered 12 categories, the available account identifies only some of them. The remaining categories should not be assumed without an official list or further confirmation.
R K Laxman’s Cartoons Add a Satirical Edge to the Message
The reported use of cartoons gave the presentation a distinctive character. R K Laxman, widely recognised for his incisive portrayal of everyday Indian life and bureaucracy, frequently used humour to expose institutional shortcomings and the gap between official intentions and administrative realities.
The illustrations reportedly encouraged senior officers to recognise familiar patterns of behaviour within government offices. Rather than treating administrative inefficiency solely as a question of rules or procedures, the presentation placed individual habits and workplace culture under scrutiny.
The concerns extended beyond the movement of files. They included respectful treatment of colleagues, responsible delegation, punctuality, effective meetings and the willingness to take decisions within the authority assigned to an officer.
The broader message was that administrative efficiency depends not only on institutional structures but also on the everyday conduct of those responsible for implementing government policies.
Performance Rankings Raise Questions About Assessment Standards
The meeting also included a quantitative review of the performance of secretaries heading various Union government departments. Officials were reportedly assessed and ranked against different performance parameters.
During the discussion, Somanathan highlighted a limitation in the existing assessment system: scores frequently clustered close to 10 on a scale of one to 10. Such a pattern makes it difficult to distinguish exceptional performance from work that is satisfactory but not outstanding. When nearly every officer receives a similarly high score, the assessment process loses some of its value as a tool for identifying excellence and areas requiring improvement.
The observation underlined the importance of meaningful performance evaluation, with sufficient differentiation to recognise outstanding contributions and identify shortcomings. A credible assessment framework should help decision-makers understand where departments are performing well and where administrative practices need improvement.
Cabinet Secretary Seeks Faster Coordination Between Ministries
Inter-ministerial consultations were another subject addressed during the meeting. Somanathan reportedly urged the Finance and Commerce Ministries to communicate their views promptly on matters requiring coordination between the departments.
Delays in obtaining comments or clearances from concerned ministries can hold up policy decisions, prolong administrative processes and affect the implementation of government programmes.
The emphasis on faster consultations complemented the concerns raised in the presentation about officers sitting on files or unnecessarily referring decisions to higher authorities. Both practices can create procedural bottlenecks that prevent government machinery from functioning efficiently.
Timely communication, clear responsibility and decisions taken at the appropriate administrative level remain essential to effective coordination across ministries.
Deregulation 3.0 Planned for January 2027
The meeting also addressed the Union Government’s next phase of regulatory reforms. Somanathan reportedly informed the secretaries that Deregulation 3.0 was scheduled to begin in January 2027.
The proposed initiative is expected to focus on reducing red tape, simplifying compliance requirements and improving the ease of doing business. It follows the government’s broader efforts to streamline regulations and remove unnecessary procedural burdens affecting businesses and other stakeholders.
The proposed reforms place additional importance on the administrative issues highlighted during the meeting. Simplifying regulations alone may not eliminate delays if officials continue to postpone decisions, demand unnecessary consultations or fail to exercise their delegated powers.
The effectiveness of deregulation will therefore depend partly on the ability of government departments to translate policy objectives into simpler procedures and more responsive administration.
Railway Employees’ Ration Cards Also Figure in the Review
Another issue reportedly raised before the Cabinet Secretary concerned approximately one lakh railway employees who were said to hold ration cards enabling them to receive free foodgrains under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY).
The Department of Food and Public Distribution brought the matter to the Cabinet Secretary’s attention. Somanathan reportedly described it as a disciplinary concern and directed Railway Board Chairman Satish Kumar to ensure that the employees concerned surrendered their ration cards.
The reported figure and the eligibility circumstances of the employees would require verification by the relevant authorities. The matter nevertheless raises questions about the proper administration of welfare benefits and the need to ensure that subsidised foodgrains reach eligible beneficiaries.
Earlier Concerns Over Ration Cards and Ayushman Bharat
The ration card issue was also linked in the reported account to concerns raised previously by the Department of Food and Public Distribution regarding the use of ration cards to establish family identity under the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY).
According to the account, the department had written to the Cabinet Secretary the previous month, pointing out that ration cards were being used for family identification even though they were not a formal eligibility requirement under the health insurance scheme.
The issue highlights the distinction between documents used to establish identity and the eligibility conditions governing access to a welfare programme. These requirements must be applied accurately to avoid confusion in the delivery of public benefits.
A Broader Message on Accountability and Administrative Reform
Somanathan’s reported presentation brought together several concerns affecting the functioning of government departments, from workplace behaviour and decision-making delays to performance assessments, inter-ministerial coordination and regulatory reform.
The use of humour may have made the message more memorable, but the underlying issues are central to administrative effectiveness. Unnecessary delays, poorly managed meetings, discourteous behaviour and the reluctance to exercise delegated authority can collectively weaken the functioning of public institutions.
The presentation also underlined that governance reforms cannot rely exclusively on new policies, regulations or performance frameworks. They require officials to adopt working practices that value accountability, efficiency, professional respect and timely decision-making.
For India’s senior bureaucracy, the message was clear: administrative authority must be accompanied by responsibility, and the effectiveness of government depends as much on the conduct of its officers as on the rules under which they operate.
