There was a fraud taken place by the BPM to the extent around 12 lakhs and it was unearthed late. The Department in order to recover the amount issued charge sheets under Rule 16 by citing the reason that the discontinued PBs were not collected and forwarded from the Bos by the SB PA & SPM etc. The following draft was prepared by Com A.Kesavan, Asst General Secretary taking my guidance. This draft may be useful and some of the points can be taken when such incident warrants.
This is only for the web followers and not for circulation in other webs or any social media. Please cooperate.
Sub: Submission of representation against the Proposed Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to be initiated against me- Reg.
Ref: 1. DO memo No: F1/OD/../20-21 dated at ……….. the 06.08.2020
2. DO memo No. F1/OD/../20-21 dated at ………… the 15.09.2020
3. DO memo No.F1/OD/../20-21 dated at …………. the 25.09.2020
I beg to submit the following for your benign consideration with fervent hope of getting justice in response to the letter cited under Ref 3 which was communicated to me on 30.09.2020.
Prelude :
Sir, Kindly permit me to begin this as an intra about me and a gist of the erstwhile events till date, which I believe would be of immense help to your good self in comprehending my issue. I was selected and appointed as Postal Assistant by Superintendent of Post offices, ………. Division and joined as PA in ……. SO on 09.03.2015
The Fraud was said to be committed during 2014 itself while I have assumed the post as PA and appointed on 09.03.2015 and I was under my probation period up until 2017.
Even though I have assumed the post of PA on March 2015, I was ordered to undergo Induction training at PTC Madurai from 22.02.2016 to 22.04.2016 only. The CBS end user training in Finacle application is imparted to me only during June 2016. This indicates without imparting any kind of training, I was ordered to work in a counter post which was subsequently identified as a sensitive post within few months vide Directorate Lr.No.4-7/2009- Vig dated 07.10.2016.
Non adherence to the principals of Natural Justice :
Vide my representation dated 25.08.2020, I’ve prayed the DA to ponder over and introspect the below mentioned documents in original based on which 3 articles of charges are leveled against me.
1. Attendance registers for the period 2016 to 2017
2. SBCO OM register of the H.O for the period from 2015-2016 for the account numbers mentioned in Article II.
3. SBCO OM register of the H.O for the SSA Account mentioned in Article III as the deposit doesn’t comply with the rule of multiple of Rs.100/- for subsequent deposits in SSA.
4. As per Rule 75(1)(VII) of POSB Manual Volume I, the divisional superintendent has to certify to the HOC by 30th September that work of balance verification has been completed. Kindly supply a copy of the certificate for the year 2015,2016, 2017.
5. Inspection report of ……… B.O for the year 2015, 2016, 2017 conducted by Sub divisional inspector/ASP/Divisional Head.
Vide the D.O letter cited under Ref 2, Only the attendance register is provided for my perusal and the other documents which I have sought to introspect are not provided to me with a mere remark that it is not connected with the articles of charges framed against.
As I am involved in this case as a subsidiary offender, I have the right to introspect the documents which are also directly/indirectly related to the cause of fraud. When the OM raised by the SBCO officials in time, the loss could have been averted. The inspection report of ………. BO for the previous years of 2015,2016 and 2017 is also not provided. When the timely verification of passbooks during MO visit/Sub divisional head visits also could have averted the loss caused to the department.
As per DG(P) No. 17-3/2006 – Inv dated 08.09.2006, the identification of offenders in fraud case should be done with due care in a just and equitable manner. All the officials who are responsible should be identified as offenders keeping in view their responsibility/role in the case and no one should be allowed to go scot-frees. As per Rule 75 (I )(VII) of POSB Manual Volume I, the divisional superintendent has to certify to the HOC by 30th September that work of balance verification has been completed. I have sought the copy of the certificate, which was denied to me. Non – availability certificate of the same is also not provided me. This indicates that I have become a scapegoat in this case and identified as a subsidiary offender while the other authorities were allowed to go scot free.
As per Rule 37 of P&T Manual Volume III, if the charged official requested to access the relevant document, it should be provided and in case of any rejection, it should be reasoned. Hence the version of DA is against the rule 37 of P&T Manual Volume III as he has not stated any reasons and merely rejected the perusal of other vital documents stating it is not connected to the case.
This is against to the principles of natural justice. This amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity and denial of natural justice.
Denial of charges in Article I
At the outset I deny all the charges mentioned in Article 1 in the statement of imputations, the entire charges framed against me in the article 1 is based on Rule 75 (2) of POSB Manual Volume I.
The Rule 75 (2) of POSB Manual Volume 1 deals with the verification of balances of accounts of departmental single handed sub offices the passbooks of which are not received for interest posting in sub offices.
The …………… SO is not a single handed office but is a selection grade office with an establishment of 1+5 assistants. The procedures laid down in Rule 75 (1) of POSB Manual Volume 1 is to be followed for selection grade offices for Verification of balances standing at BO. As the rule is misquoted while framing the article of charges against me, I deny all the charges framed with the misquoted rule in Article 1 as it is technically invalid. This indicates that the charges are void and defective. The charges framed are not in consonance with the rule quoted and hence on this ground the charges in Article 1 shall be set aside.
Denial of charges in Article 2
As per SB order 14/2015 communicated in Department of posts F.No.116-15/2013-SB (Pt – SBCO ) dated at New Delhi the 19.10.2015, noting of DLT and BAT stands discontinued. As it stands discontinued, it need not be verified although it is noted by BO.
The charges are framed against me for non adherence to a procedure which was identified as discontinued by the Postal Directorate. Hence these charges are irregular and is not valid in the lines of SB order 14/2015. These orders are non superseded by any new orders subsequently.
Also there is no specific rule in SB Manuals/Volumes for making an error extract if there is correction in DLT/BAT. As such the DA has not mentioned the specific rule in SB manual/volume which I have violated while framing the charges in Article 2.
On the date of transaction of 07.11.2015, I was on casual leave, but the charges are contemplated against me even though I was not on duty on the said date.
On the date of transaction of 21.03.2016, 25.02.2016 and 15.04.2016, I was undergoing induction training at PTC, Madurai vide memo No. ………….. dated 22.04.2016. Even though I was not on duty in the sub office, the charges are contemplated against my name for these dates also. The attendance register of the sub office and the PTC memo cited here is enough to substantiate the same.
The version of the DA in framing the charges is contrary to the actual fact that I was on leave/deputed to Induction training at PTC, Madurai and the question of non devotion to duty may not arise as envisaged in Rule 3 (1) (II) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964
The charges are in ostensive in nature and not in consonance of the violation of any specific rules in the SB manuals/guides. The charges are vague and in presumptive in nature only to make me as a scapegoat in this case. I submit that the charges leveled should be based on violation of specific rules and in my case no rules have been mentioned in the charge sheet and thus it should be treated as vague and non-sustainable as per the rules and also law of the land.
Denial of charges in Article 3
It is absolutely necessary to mention the rules constituting the misconduct as the sole purpose of the charge is to make the charged official in clear terms of what is the allegation against him. The Madras High Court held in the case of Sabapathy Vs State of TamilNadu in 1985 IC 521 that the charges must not be vague and should state in definite terms the allegations on which they are based and the grounds which have led the authority to take action. In this case the allegations are vague and it is only based on assumptions rather than on facts.
As per DG P&T No. 114/176/78 – Disc II dated 13.02.1981, it is emphasized that the disciplinary authority merely established certain lapses on the part of the government servant without explaining the facts leading to the loss and how the lapses on the part of the government servant had a link with the loss sustained to the department is not lawful. Violation of rules is a must and charges cannot be framed on presumption and assumption. Therefore it is absolutely necessary to mention the rules constituting the misconduct as the sole purpose of the charge is to make the charged official in clear terms what is the allegation against him and how it led to the charges etc.,
As per the hand book for Inquiry officers and disciplinary authorities by DOPT, My act should not be misconstrued as a violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS ( Conduct ) Rules, 1964, because there is no rule in SB manual/Volumes to call for passbook when the depositor defaults to adhere to the minimum transaction amount for the previous year and also I have not acted against any established practice in the department. A depositor defaulting the account is normally considered a natural occurrence. It is not in consonance of the violation of any specific rules in the SB volumes/Manual.
The version of DA arriving at the conclusion that I have facilitated the main offender to the commission of frauds to the tune of Rs………../- is based on a mere assumption and not based on facts. To summarize, all the articles of charges in the charge sheet issued in letter cited under Ref 1 are hereby denied by me.
Therefore, it is humbly requested the benign SSPOs that the charges levelled against me may kindly be dropped and favourable orders please be issued.
Thanking You in anticipation of Justice
Drafted by : A.Kesavan AGS @ kanchipuram
0 Comments