Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. As per rules 53 and 54 of Manual 2015, the public authorities have to maintain the records if they are weeded out and they are not supposed to send any recorded file or archival records except under a requisition in the form prescribed under Public Records Act, 1993. The CPIOs did not show any requisition of such records. Hence, they are supposed to be with either Ministry of Tribal Affairs or Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. This Manual mandates not only maintenance of records but also easy retrieval. The public authorities have to explain why they are not in a position to retrieve the files sought by the appellant. It is also not known whether these two ministries have prepared any list of missing files or do they know at least what files they are having in their possession. They should have a mechanism to maintain the list of files which were not traced from RTI applications since 2005. The public authorities have developed an easy mechanism of denying information on the excuse of 'missing files', which was never provided either by Public Records Act, 1993 or by MoPT. It is also surprising that MoPT has not made any reference to the problem of missing files which was being cited by the public authorities in thousands of RTI responses since 2005. The MoPT should have addressed this serious lapse and prepared a set of guidelines to tackle.

"...4. The Commission is of the view that, prima facie, public authority cannot deny the right of the appellant to get an alternative plot, by putting forward an excuse of missing the file. The defense of missing file cannot be accepted even under the RTI Act. If the file is really not traceable, it reflects the inefficient and pathetic management of files by the Public Authority. If the file could not be traced in spite of best efforts, it is the duty of the respondent authority to reconstruct the file or develop a mechanism to address the issue raised by the appellant.

Maintain cat to save files from rats

21. The public authorities usually claim floods or fire accidents as the causes of file missing. Besides, they take excuse of rats and termites. Mr. Baswan said CIC/MOSJE/A/2017/181342 Page 11 that he remembered some allowance for maintaining cat to save the files from rats. They should secure files from termites also. Whether these 'accidents' or caused by 'negligence' or 'vested interests'? Whenever an RTI question brings out the 'missing file' incident to the notice of the public authority, it is the duty of the CPIO to place it before the public authority, which has to take immediate steps to know whether it was caused by carelessness or vested interests and then follow it up with necessary legal actions. No public servant should escape by causing disappearance of files to facilitate escape for other corrupt colleagues or cause trauma to honest public servant. The Commission found in many cases of second appeals, the public authorities, which pleaded that floods or fire caused loss of records do not present any lists of files destroyed or survived in such accident. This appears to be a mere lapse in administration, but it could be deliberate attempt to fail the 'transparency law' RTI Act. The DoPT should have issued some guidelines to tackle such 'accidents' by making it mandatory to find out immediately the list of files survived or dead and publish the same on the official website or keeping a copy of such list with CPIO or public records officer or boss of that public authority, so that no officer dishonestly cause disappearance and claim that they were lost in accident.

23. The frequent reference to 'missing files' as an excuse to deny the information is a major threat to transparency, accountability and also major reason for violation of Right to Information Act. Millions of RTI applications might have been rejected by PIOs on this ground during the last 11 years of RTI regime. With "missing files excuse" being around, it will be futile to talk about implementation of Right to Information Act. Reviewing the working and writing 'way forwards' or doing seminars on this great law, or giving a rank based on implementation, without addressing this issue will not take us anywhere. Most surprisingly, while using this excuse profusely, no public authority made any effort to address this issue. No manual of record management or record retention schedule even mentions this expression.