Authority does not give officials the licence to belittle applicants; it obliges them to treat everyone fairly
Published Date – 1 November 2026, 09:00 PM
By Vangeepuram Srinivasa Chary
The relationship between government officials and citizens reflects the quality of governance. A recent controversy involving the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) of Gajwel, Telangana, has brought this responsibility into focus. A video circulated on social media reportedly showed the officer making objectionable remarks to a farmer seeking resolution of a land-related grievance.
The incident attracted public criticism, and news reports subsequently stated that the officer had been suspended following a preliminary report. Beyond this case lies a fundamental question: what happens to public confidence when citizens seeking assistance encounter language that appears to disregard their dignity?
Purpose of Public Office
A Mandal Revenue Officer is entrusted with responsibilities that directly affect people’s lives. Land records, ownership disputes and compensation procedures can determine the financial security of entire families. For citizens unfamiliar with administrative processes, the revenue office is an important point of contact with the government.
An officer must combine administrative competence with patience, accessibility and responsible communication. Citizens deserve clear explanations about their applications, delays and available remedies. Even when a request cannot be granted, the decision should be communicated respectfully. Authority does not confer the freedom to belittle applicants; it imposes an obligation to treat them fairly.
Where legal complications or competing claims prevent immediate resolution, officials should explain the obstacles, identify the documents required and guide applicants towards the appropriate procedure. Clear guidance reduces uncertainty and helps citizens understand the difference between a genuine administrative delay and neglect.
The Dignity of Those Who Feed the Nation
Farmers sustain the country’s food supply while confronting uncertainties beyond their control. Unpredictable rainfall, rising cultivation costs, crop failures, fluctuating market prices and inadequate returns place considerable pressure on agricultural households. Land disputes and delayed compensation can further threaten their livelihoods.
When farmers approach government offices, they exercise their right to seek information, clarification and lawful consideration. Their financial circumstances must never become grounds for humiliation. A farmer struggling to explain a problem deserves patience and guidance rather than irritation or ridicule.
Farmers’ dignity does not depend on their economic contribution; it is inherent in their equal status as citizens. Respect should not depend on income, education, influence or confidence in dealing with officials. The true test of a citizen-friendly administration is often how it treats people with the least power in an official setting. For farming households, unresolved land disputes and delayed compensation can threaten financial stability. Officials should explain the status of claims and guide applicants towards the steps required for resolution.
Abuse of Authority
News reports identified the farmer as a resident of a village in Telangana whose grievance concerned compensation for land acquired for the Regional Ring Road project. The circulated video reportedly captured the Tahsildar asking whether the farmer had consumed pesticide and whether he was still alive. The remarks prompted criticism because they appeared to make light of the farmer’s distress.
Dismissing people’s distress can deepen their helplessness and discourage others from approaching public institutions
Such language raises concerns beyond an unpleasant conversation. An official exercises institutional authority, while an applicant may depend on that office for an important decision. Words that trivialise distress can deepen a citizen’s helplessness and discourage others from approaching public institutions.
The officer reportedly explained that compensation had been delayed because of a family dispute concerning the division of land. He also reportedly said that the farmer had repeatedly threatened to consume pesticide. These circumstances deserve consideration; a circulated recording alone should not be treated as conclusive proof of every aspect of the encounter.
Even when handling repeated complaints or emotionally charged disputes, public officials must maintain professional standards. A difficult interaction calls for calm explanation, appropriate documentation and, where necessary, referral to the relevant authority—not remarks that may be perceived as humiliating.
Accountability
Reports stated that the District Collector suspended the Tahsildar and directed him not to leave his headquarters without prior permission. Suspension is an administrative measure, not a final determination of misconduct. The farmer subsequently clarified that the interaction had taken place months earlier and that the land dispute had been resolved and compensation received.
Resolving a compensation dispute does not settle the separate question of whether the officer’s conduct met professional standards. Equally, public criticism should not predetermine the outcome of an inquiry. A fair process must consider the available evidence, the circumstances of the interaction and the officer’s response before reaching a conclusion.
Beyond Suspension
Disciplinary proceedings may address an individual incident, but lasting improvement requires institutional reform. Government departments should recognise communication, emotional restraint and grievance management as essential administrative skills. Officers dealing directly with the public need training in handling disagreements, explaining legal restrictions and responding appropriately to distress.
Revenue offices should provide accessible systems through which applicants can track cases and understand delays. When compensation is held up by ownership disputes or incomplete documentation, affected families should receive clear explanations and guidance on resolving the obstacles.
Supervisory officials must review grievance handling, identify recurring delays and examine complaints about staff conduct fairly. Where misconduct is established, corrective action should be proportionate and based on the findings.
These reforms do not weaken administrative authority. Officials must enforce rules and protect public resources while communicating decisions firmly, fairly and respectfully. Citizens should know where to submit complaints and when to expect a response. Clear timelines and written acknowledgements reduce uncertainty, while adequate staffing and consistent supervision help officials manage requests effectively. Respectful treatment must be a routine administrative standard, not merely a response to media attention.
Citizens often judge government institutions through personal experience. They notice whether officials listen, explain decisions and treat applicants respectfully. Each interaction can strengthen or weaken public confidence. The media can expose questionable conduct, but responsible reporting must distinguish allegations from established findings and acknowledge subsequent clarifications.
Public Office Is a Public Trust
The Gajwel incident offers an opportunity to reaffirm the ethical foundations of public administration. The reported remarks require fair examination, the officer’s explanation deserves consideration, and any final decision must rest on evidence and applicable rules. The episode should also prompt reflection on how citizens are treated when they seek government assistance. An official’s designation confers powers but also imposes obligations. Those powers exist to administer the law, protect public interests and serve citizens without discrimination or humiliation.
Farmers and other citizens should be able to approach government offices confident that their grievances will receive lawful consideration and their dignity will remain intact. Public administration cannot promise that every request will be approved or every problem resolved immediately. It can ensure that people are heard, procedures are explained, and decisions are communicated respectfully.
Public office is not a privilege to command citizens; it is a responsibility to serve them.
(The author is a counsellor, achievement facilitator and human development trainer specialising in guidance, parenting and adolescent development)
