Dear Mr Krishna, The fact is that the Rule I cited is a SPECIAL Rule which is in existence and in force. It is very well settled that a General Law like the RTI Act cannot over-ride a Special provision in law.
The serving officers who are members of this group (I cannot speak for rti4ngo) are well aware of the scope and application of Rules such as the one I cited and had requested for the anonymous facility. It is also pertinent that the membership of this group is very well regulated and we hardly have any bogus / dummy members at present - unlike some other RTI Yahoo groups. I would also like to dispute the dubious concept of "good" public servants whose cause you agitate. It is precisely to ensure that ALL public servants are "good" that we have Rules like the CCS Rules which must be enforced. At the end of the day it is upto the concerned member to control his participation in our groups, as Moderators we only faciltate them. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], Dhirendra Krishna <dhirendra....@...> wrote: > > Dear Shri Roy, > > It is a matter of interpretation, Sir. > > You and I, as moderators of RTI related groups are not the competent > authority to interpret the provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules and Govt. of > India decisions there-under. We can only decide on the objectives of the > Internet group and act as a moderator. > > RTI Act is a law passed by the Parliament and Government is required to > implement it. If an Internet group is a "movement" to voice citizen's > concern about its non implementation, I believe that it is not an activity > to embarrass or excite dissatisfaction against the Government. As a matter > of fact, most of the RTI applications demand public records that may > embarrass Government. If you carefully look at the preamble of RTI Act, the > enactment is for transparency of information for holding Government > accountable to the governed. It is further stated therein that transparency > of information is vital for containing corruption. If we believe in > paramountcy of the democratic ideal, public servants should be aware of the > deep anguish of the citizens on issues arising from lack of transparency. > > RTI Act intends to usher in transparent and accountable public > administration. In my humble opinion ( and also in the opinion of > Administrative Reforms Commission on RTI implementation) every public > servant should be aware of RTI Act, so that they can fulfill the obligations > of public authority in letter and spirit. At the nascent stage of > implementation of RTI Act, there are controversies and some of these > debatable issues are aired in the Internet group. Every *good* public > servant should not only be aware of citizen's concern about unsatisfactory > implementation of RTI Act and issues revealed by use of RTI Act by citizens. > If membership of Internet groups enables Government servants to become aware > of these issues, it is in public interest for them to remain as Member of > such group. > > Let us leave it to the Government to give their decisions under CCS > (Conduct) Rules; it is not for the moderator on groups to decide one way or > the other. If the Government ever decides to ban membership of RTI related > Internet groups for Government employees, there are adequate grounds for > public interest litigation against it. This could be an interesting debate > before the Supreme Court ! > > For the present, none of the RTI related groups have been banned under CCS > (Conduct) Rules. It is not for moderators (like you and me) to dissuade > public servant from Membership. > > With best wishes, > > Dhirendra Krishna IA&AS (Retired) > Moderator, > Yahoo groups rti4ngo and rti4empwerment.
