1.

Its report, submitted in May 1999, highlighted

political interference as the primary factor responsible for dismal state of affairs in
UPSEB. It stated that the top management of UPSEB frequently conspired with
politicians and big consumers in corruption and theft of power. It reported that
UPSEB witnessed ad-hoc human resource policies, ad-hoc transfers and promotions
of employees, large-scale meter-tampering, theft of power, and disgruntled
employees.
2. In addition, it recommended preparation of terms and
conditions of Chairman and members of UPSEB and formation of a selection
committee for fresh appointments
3. Overstaffing, corruption Depreciation expense increased by almost 8 times during the 11 year
periods while the cost of electricity imported increased by almost 11 times (3.5 * 3.5 times). This
was a clear indication of the prevalent mismanagement of the resources. Primarily on account of
one large and no divisional structure.
4. Barring the above two costs, average revenue/tariff were sufficient to recover the operations
and maintainance costs.
5. How were the employees pacified: Trust was made for the pension in which more than Rs 100
crores were deposited. Unions were broken the government. A type of coercive restructuring.
6. Power sector is one of the sectors whose strategy or policies has great impact on the other
industries and sectors. Hence, it was crucial for the top management to have cross-industry
knowledge and expertise. This did not happen due to appointment of retired MDs.
7. High attrition rate to private sector distributors since the sense of security which people had
prior to restructuring were completely lost.
8. Autocratic and non-participatory of the government in restructuring.
9. socio-economic orientation to a purely
economic orientation

10. The appraisal system does not reflect the actual performance which is more driven by human
concerns and relationships rather than contributions , partly affected by internal political
influences.
11. The divisional structure helps reduce the information overload and treats the divisional heads
as CEOs of their own business. Strategic and financial responsibility rests with the divisional
heads who report to the corporate CEO and consults the corporate top fnctional experts. This
structure provides for every division all the functional expertise as in the case of functional
structure. There is duplicity of functions as it raises the cost of organisational structure.
12. Under exmpahsis of functions like vigilance and audit, commercial and regulatory