Clarification regarding obligations of public authorities

[abhijeet]

I would like to have clarification on the sub section 1(d) of section 4 of the RTI ACT,05 which goes as -- Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected persons. If any Govt. officer through his administrative decisions/ activities directly or indirectly helps the corruptopn/cprrupt persons: in that case any body is allowed to ask for the reason of that activity or otherwise as per the mentioned subsection of section 4 of RTI Act, 05. Please clarify this, if I could make it clear.


Abhijeet

[mpai]

Its a bit difficult to understand your question. Senior Government officers are generally not aware on the malpractices being carried out by their subordinate offices. Such officers cannot possibly be accountable for indirectly helping these corrupt staff. Kindly refer to Section 21, for any act done in good faith.

Frankly on the Secretary of DOP&T, New Delhi is authorized for any interpretation like the clause you just mentioned in your post. So it would be better if you contact them and post the reply you receive here.

Regarding reasons, citizens of our country have a right to know if the Government employees are working honestly or not. You can ask the PA for details on the activities being carried out by such employees and whether their respective supervisor is keeping a constant vigil to prevent any forms of corruption from taking place etc. The very idea of Section 4 is to prevent corruption. You can also ask for justifications and grounds of any activity which you feel is in not in conformity with the rules of the respective department.

Manoj

[abhijeet]

With sufficient proof and documents of illegalities committed by a Govt. officer some of us submitted at least a dozen of representation to the concerned Deptt., Public greivance (both state & Central ), to the Principal Secretary, to the Chief Minister's office, and a couple of representations with documents submitted to the vigilance Commission also. But all in vain. Every representation, application was sent to the concerned CO Operation Deptt- which at the instance of CMO's office carried out a "concocted" enquery whic "revealed that the said corrupt officer was a very sincere officer and all the allegations submitted were rejected with some baseless ground. The complainants were not allowed to justify their views. This most unfortunate part of the Govt. action which helped the corrupt officer. Nocely HE retired on 31st July. 2007. ---Abhijeet

[mpai]

Originally Posted by abhijeet

HE retired on 31st July. 2007. ---Abhijeet

Just because the Govt. Employee retired, does not mean that he is safe. You can file an RTI Application with the concerned PA and seek information on the status and action taken report on your complain letters. In another application, to the same PA, you can ask for the inquiry report etc. If you get the information on both, you can analyze and submit the same to the CVC. There are several other avenues for you to peruse this matter.

Lage Raho

Manoj

[kushal]

Remember that once the Gazetted Officer retires, it needs a Presidential sanction for prosecution, so you must channel accordingly.

[mpai]

Originally Posted by kushal

Remember that once the Gazetted Officer retires, it needs a Presidential sanction for prosecution, so you must channel accordingly.

I am aware that there have been certain modifications recently, that if the GO is still drawing pension from Govt. funds, he is still accountable.

In yet another CIC decision, a retired PIO was penalised. Its true, both cases are of different nature. So I guess, on Kushal should be able to shed some more light in this regard.

Manoj