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
An ordinary Postal worker, born in a village Krishnarayapuram in the erstwhile Trichy District and now under Karur district. Elevated to the highest echelon of the Union as the General Secretary of the All India Postal Employees Union, Group C Central Headquarters at New Delhi and the Leader Staff Side of the Departmental Council JCM. 
The CGS should have asked for an inquiry under Rule 16(b)..Though the DA may reject the request , at the Appeal stage this can be raised as the case of denial of natural justice.Even if the appeal is also rejected , the CGS can challenge it in the CAT. The court may take cognisance of the matter and sometimes order Denovo proceedings. Perusal of the documents is permitted under Rules, even if the chargesheet is issued for minor penalty.
ReplyDeleteMoreover any lacunae in the wordings of the charge sheet is to be pointed out at the time of Appeal.Nowadays DAs ,out of ignorance are freely using the phrase " the act of the CGS is unbecoming of a govt servant" in the statement of imputation itself.Such attributions amount to bias or prejudice.This too should be taken note of.
Fine. Thanks and regards.
ReplyDelete