A fresh administrative controversy has emerged in Madhya Pradesh's Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Department following recent transfer and charge orders that have allegedly placed junior officials in positions traditionally held by senior officers. The move has triggered resentment within the department, with several officers questioning the rationale behind the appointments and raising concerns over service hierarchy and administrative norms.

The dispute centers around charge orders issued on June 15 and June 16. According to departmental officials, employees have described the arrangement as a “charge over charge” system, where officers holding lower-ranked positions have been entrusted with responsibilities of significantly higher posts.

Under the orders, several Assistant Managers who were already functioning as in-charge Managers have now been assigned the additional charge of General Manager at District Trade and Industry Centres (DICs). The appointments include Subodh Kumar Shrivastava in Mandideep, J.P. Tiwari in Rewa, Shivshankar Singh in Niwari, Suresh Kumar Goswami in Bhind, Rammoorti Khare in Anuppur, Ajay Tiwari in Shivpuri, and B.L. Ahirwar in Damoh.

These postings have become the focal point of the controversy, as many officers argue that officials working in temporary or in-charge capacities have been elevated to positions carrying greater administrative authority despite the availability of senior personnel.

Senior Officers Raise Objections

According to departmental sources, more than 60 Class-II gazetted officers selected through the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) in the 2016, 2017, and 2019 batches are currently serving in the department. These include Managers and Assistant Directors who are considered eligible for higher responsibilities.

Officials claim that bypassing these officers while assigning General Manager-level charges to in-charge Managers has created dissatisfaction across the department. Many have questioned why regularly recruited and comparatively senior officers were overlooked despite being available for such assignments.

The issue has gained further significance because several officers have reportedly been waiting for promotions for an extended period. Critics argue that while promotion processes remain pending, junior officials are being entrusted with higher responsibilities through administrative arrangements.

Concerns Over Confidential Reports

One of the most contentious aspects of the controversy involves the preparation of Confidential Reports (CRs), an important component of government service records and performance assessment.

Departmental sources indicate that in some districts, Class-II gazetted officers may now have to work under officials who originally belong to a lower service category. As a result, junior officers could be required to write the confidential reports of senior officers.

Officials opposing the orders argue that such a situation is unusual from both administrative and service-rule perspectives. They believe it could affect morale and create complications in the department's reporting structure.

Questions Over Administrative Logic

The developments have led to broader questions regarding the basis on which these charge assignments were made. Officers maintain that if eligible gazetted officers are already available, the department should explain why higher responsibilities were entrusted to officials holding lower substantive posts.

The controversy comes shortly after similar concerns surfaced in Madhya Pradesh's Commercial Tax Department. There, transfer orders allegedly ignored provisions of the transfer policy, including the posting of multiple officers against a single sanctioned position and the transfer of employees nearing retirement.

In one case, officials pointed out that an officer with less than six months remaining before retirement was transferred despite policy provisions generally discouraging such transfers. Other instances reportedly involved multiple postings against a single post and vacancies being left unfilled after transfers.

As criticism grows, the MSME Department has yet to issue an official clarification regarding the charge orders. However, discussions within the department continue, and the issue is increasingly being viewed as a test of administrative transparency, service norms, and personnel management practices in the state government.

For now, the controversy remains unresolved, with affected officers awaiting a formal response from the department and possible reconsideration of the recent orders.