Around two weeks ago, an Office Memorandum (dated. 18/05/2017), issued by The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CG), was brought to our notice. The document caught our attention as it directed officers under the Patent Offices, Trade Marks Registries and offices for GI and RGNIIPM “to desist from taking their personal grievances on other platforms like Ministry, grievance cell or using any other tool like RTI etc., without availing proper administrative remedy, citing non-access to the information”.
Please note that the Memorandum is not merely suggestive, but also contemplates disciplinary action upon breach (refer to highlighted portions below).
I have reproduced the text of the Memorandum in full below:
“It has come to the notice of undersigned that few officials in this office are trying to by-pass the administrative channel available to them in order to resolve their grievance/acquire information (which is otherwise accessible to the public) relating to general office procedures/facilities available to them, etc…Any personal grievance/incidence of non-access of information (not being exhaustive and/or frequent), shall be brought into the notice of immediate higher authority and Head of Office through proper channel, wherever required. In case, the matter is not resolved, same may be brought to the notice of undersigned.
Officials are cautioned to desist from taking their personal grievances on other platforms like Ministry, grievance cell or using any other tool like RTI etc., without availing proper administrative remedy, citing non-access to the information.
Act of any official indulged in by-pass of proper channel/frivolous queries in frequent manner, causing unnecessary/disproportionate diversion of the public resources of the office, shall be considered as an act in a discourteous manner, thereby, rendering him/her a candidate of unbecoming a government servant under rule 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and liable for disciplinary action.”
(Emphasis Added)
Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 reads as follows:
“(1) Every Government servant shall at all times—
(i) …;
(ii) …
(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant.
(iv) …
…”
Before I move onto the next point of discussion, let me make it very clear that the Memorandum is problematic independent of the CG’s intentions behind it. People have been making use of the mentioned grievance mechanisms in the past for a plethora of reasons (“Good” and “Bad“), but the statutory protections provided continue to subsist and the CG has no authority to deprive anybody of it.
Nevertheless, considering the possibility of there being a ‘legitimate‘ concern or event behind the rather extreme step, we attempted to contact the CG’s office, but failed to receive a reply.
The following is a copy of the email we sent to the CG’s office ([email protected]):
“Dear Sir,
The attached office memorandum was brought to SpicyIP’s (India’s leading IP Blog) notice, with a request to report on the same. The office memorandum is quite widely worded and could be construed to mean that officers are not allowed to file RTIs, which is otherwise a citizen’s right.
While this seemed to be quite a drastic step, we felt it would be inappropriate to make conclusions without understanding the surrounding context in which the memorandum was issued. We are sure you must have strong reasons for doing so and wish to know about the same such that we can put out a balanced report.
Apart from providing general information, I would be incredibly grateful if you could answer the following pointed questions:
i. What was the nature of the specific event that led to the issuance of the memorandum? Would be grateful if you could recount the details with specificity, without divulging the data concerning relevant parties.
ii. Could you explain the intended scope of application of the memorandum? Did you intend it to apply to all prospective RTI applications emanating from your officers, or only to certain kinds of RTI applications?
iii. You refer to “diversion of public resources” in the memorandum. Could you please shed some light onto how RTI applications or reliance on other mechanisms result in expense of public resources? Detail would be appreciated.
Please let us know if you would like us to quote you or otherwise. I will not quote you unless you explicitly allow me to do so.”
Irrespective of the context in which the order was issued, such a drastic step that takes away the statutorily protected rights of the officers collectively cannot be justified. Moreover, if the directive was only meant to apply to a specific set of actions, assuming the restriction of which is “legitimate“, then the Memorandum should have made that clear and should have accordingly defined the ambit of the restriction. Broadly worded restrictions are ripe for exploitation.
Also, such directives cast doubt over the CG’s commitment to transparency. The email that tipped us regarding the Memorandum, raised concerns regarding the lack of transparency w.r.t. transfers and officer’s immovable property returns. It claimed that while some officers were constantly being transferred, there were others who hadn’t been moved since 20 years. The only way the CG can allay these claims emphatically is by allowing for maximum possible scrutiny. Unfortunately, the Memorandum does the exact opposite.
Anyway, we implore readers to shoot an email to the CG’s office ([email protected]), demanding for an explanation of the same. If you are the more vocal type, you can contact the CG’s office via telephone at 022-24132735 or 022-24 123388.
Chief References:
Cover image from here.
