The annexure to be forwarded to the charged officer need not be signed by the disciplinary authority
17 Oct, 2012Background
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs in which he referred to G.I. MHA O.M. No. 234/18/65, AVD (II), dated 5.3.1966 that on the advice of the Law Ministry that the annexure to be forwarded to the charged officer/official need not be signed by the disciplinary authority AVD (II). He submitted that by accepting the above advice of the Ministry of Law as correct tantamount to permitting any official to sign the annexure. The appellant requested the PIO to clarify certain issues such as, What will be the fate of annexure, if the same are issued unsigned; do the annexure have some value, in the eyes of Law if the same are unsigned; Will the charge sheet be valid, in the eyes of law; What will be the fate of the inquiry on such like unsigned annexure; Are there any GOI instruction on this issue; and is there any judicial authority on this issue.
The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the Advice Section of the Ministry has informed that he has not mentioned any file number in which the above mentioned advice was stated to have been given by the Department. The PIO further stated that from the issues raised it is not possible for them to ascertain as to whether any advice has ever been tendered by this Ministry or the context/ reference in which it has been tendered. The PIO further stated that files seeking legal opinion are received in their section from various Ministries/ Departments of the GOI and after recording the opinions on the concerned file, the same are returned to the referring Ministries /Departments. The PIO added that the information requested by the appellant appears to be in the nature of seeking advice and the Ministry does not provide advice to private individuals. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the appellant had sought clarifications on a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA’s) ADV (II) which was tantamount to seeking legal advice and the same was not covered under the definition of information as defined under section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has sought the advice/opinion of the respondent, which does not fall within the ambit of information as defined under section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected the appeal holding that the public authority can only provide information which is held by them in material form.
Citation: Mr. P.S. Sawhney v. Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001545
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/730
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission