论文部分内容阅读
根据《国家行政机关公文处理办法》规定,“请示”和“函”都可以用来请求批准,但“请示”用于向“上级机关”请求批准,“函”则是请求“有关主管部门”批准.然而在实践中,往往遇到这种情况,需要请求批准的机关并非本机关的“直系”上级,而是“旁系”上级.这时,究竟是用上行文中的“请示”,还是用平行意义上的“函”?《秘书》1989年第2期和1991年第12期分别刊登的张志成的《“函”与其他文种的区别》和肖绪元的《“请示”和“函”对照一瞥》两篇文章,都认为应当用“函”,理由是这样的机关不是“上级机关”,而是“不相隶属的有关主管部门.”对此,本人不敢苟同.
According to the provisions of the Measures for Handling Official Documents in State Administrative Organs, “Request for Instructions” and “Letter” may both be used to request for approval, but “Request for Instructions” is for requesting approval from the “superior authority”; “Letter” refers to requesting “relevant competent authorities” However, in practice, often encountered such a situation, the authorities need to seek approval is not the authority of the “immediate” superior, but “patriarchal” superior. At this time, whether the upper excerpt of “petition” or The difference between Zhang Zhicheng’s “letter” and other texts published in parallel in the “letter”, “secretary”, No. 2, 1989, and No. 12, 1991 respectively, and Xiao Xuanyuan’s “Request for Instructions” and “Letter” At a glance, “both articles consider that a” letter “should be used on the grounds that such an organ is not a” superior organ, “but” an unrelated competent authority. "In this regard, I disagreed.