Government officials are entrusted with the responsibility to serve the public and uphold the integrity of their offices. Regular attendance is not just a procedural obligation – it is a moral duty. When officials fail to be present, it disrupts essential services, causes public hardship, and reflects a troubling decline in professional ethics.
The recent appeal by the Ao Kaketshir Mungdang (AKM) regarding the absence of the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) in Mokokchung is a glaring example of how absenteeism affects citizens, especially those from rural areas. This situation highlights a broader concern: the lack of accountability and effective monitoring mechanisms in government offices. Public servants are duty-bound to serve the people, and their absence not only disrupts essential services but also erodes public trust in administrative institutions. AKM’s repeated efforts to seek a resolution, including an earlier appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, highlight a systemic failure to address public grievances promptly.
While such incidents are concerning, they point to a deeper issue: the moral obligation of public servants to justify the salaries they draw from public funds. How can an official, who accepts a monthly paycheck, neglect the very work they are paid to perform? This is not just administrative failure – it is moral bankruptcy.
The overwhelming response from readers on our social media platforms as soon as this news was published echoes a clear demand – all government departments must adopt biometric attendance systems, similar to the SMILE App used by the School Education Department. The common refrain is that such systems ensure transparency, enable real-time monitoring, and minimize absenteeism.
Rules and regulations already mandate that government employees report for duty regularly. Yet, enforcing these rules often seems to depend on public complaints and external intervention. This raises a fundamental question: where is the sense of duty and conscience among public servants? While not all officers are negligent, absenteeism is not just a breach of regulations – it is a betrayal of public trust.
Biometric systems can be a practical solution, but no technology can replace the inner sense of responsibility public servants should possess. Officials must reflect on their actions – how many people suffer due to their absence? How many lives are affected by their indifference?
It is time for government departments to address absenteeism seriously. Beyond technological measures, there must be a renewed emphasis on ethical conduct. Public office is not a privilege, it is a responsibility.