30th June retirees case - Supreme Court passed comments- noncompliance costs as well as interest may be imposed.

I have just gone through the old letter I made for the CHQ during my period as General Secretary. The following is the draft I made against two cases of AP Circle and a huge recovery ordered under contributory negligence. Still interesting to read. Why not you read the same and note the points for your future reference?

Sub: -   Misuse of contributory negligence provisions and harassing innocents – Request reiteration of old instructions and actions against the misuse of the provisions in Andhra Pradesh Circle.

Ref: -   This union letter of even no. dated. 05.10.2012

Apropos reference, it is constrained to note that the circle administration instead of remitting both the cases to CBI as well as processing to confiscate the properties of delinquent officials in resorting to ash up the case locally as many officers were involved to the corrupt elements and wanted to protect him.

We are reproducing the entire letter below for your kind consideration and appropriate action; atleast the case may please be referred to CBI.

A kind attention is invited to the discussions we had in the strike Charter of Demands and also in the JCM Departmental Council Meeting requesting to reiterate the existing instructions on the subject to guard against the misuse of provisions.

It is the common rule that in every Department, the instructions on important issues shall be reiterated periodically and it was being issued in the past in our department. Despite our pleadings based on the same lines, it was misconstrued as if we are demanding any unwarranted sweeping order against the usage of contributory negligence.

In our opinion the following Rules are not adhered while deciding contributory factors and there is a travesty of Justice and innocents are being penalized by pardoning the guilty.

(i)       There is no condition that the entire loss is to be recovered (Rule II)

(ii)      Honest errors should be condoned

(iii)    The loss should have been caused due to negligence of breach of the Rules (Rule 106)

(iv)    Extraneous factors like shortage of staff, pressure on the counter should be taken into account (Rule 107)

(v)      Efforts should be made to recover the entire loss from the main offender and the question of recovery for contributory negligence arises if it fails (Rule 204, 204 A)

(vi)    Pecuniary responsibilities need not be fixed for more routine and petty lapses (OM Dt. 10.02.75)

(vii)   Contributory negligence should be correctly assessed and extenuating circumstances should be given due weight (OM Dt. 19.07.1959)

(viii) Recovery should not hamper the efficiency of the officer while determining their contributory negligence.

 There are more than 10 orders issued on the subject since 1959 reiterated again and again to prevent misuse the same. The Govt. is having a clear conscious that there should no travesty of Justice and innocents should not be punished or penalized.

It is pertinent to mention that our CHQ already submitted all the copies of the orders and requested the Secretary to reiterate all the orders in summary and updating the orders on the subject. It is dismaying to mention that the intention has been wrongly interpreted and no instructions have been issued so far.

Now we wish to bring two cases pertaining to Andhra Circle which will exhibit the misuse of the provisions and also the need to arrest the menace forthwith.

(1)     MVP Colony fraud, Visakhapatnam

The SPM, Shri. D. Narasimha Prasad, duly utilizing the loopholes in RD and MIS about non maintenance of ledgers at HPOs, defrauded the Government  money to the tune of 62 lakhs by manipulating the closing balance like cash in hand and balance in cheques. He used to indent cheques for MIS closures and shown the cheques as undisbursed despite it was paid to the depositors and for the equal amount he took the cash and defrauded.

The Postal Assistant had made a complaint against the SPM about non entrusting any work other than the receipts of the post office and not allowing her to function as Joint custodian and not shown her the MDW . She was threatened by the SPM after hearing the complaint from the SSPOs, but at the same time a formal enquiry was held and disposed.

The office was inspected several times since 2008 and fictitious balances have not been detected by the inspecting officers as the SPM was capable of offering gifts to the inspecting officers.

After the PA complaint, an inspection was managed on 03.12.2009 which was intimated earlier to the SPM and the SPM has shown all the cheques were returned back to Head Post office as cash remittance on 05.12.2009. When the summary clerk of the HPO intimated about the non receipt of cheques, the Postmaster summoned the SPM and got a revised Daily account by replacing the earlier daily account in which he showed the cheques as a remittance. On 05.12.2009 night the SPM has arranged a fake theft attempt and burns the records in which he defrauded.

In the above incident the entire Regional administration and Divisional administration were in favour of protecting the culprit due to the following reasons. 

1.     The PMG staff quarter is situated in the same premises of MVP Colony SO and what are all the services required to the PMG and his family, it was managed by the said SPM. The facts can be verified from the staff.

2.     The DPS, Visakhapatnam celebrated his son’s first birthday anniversary in such a grand manner for which the entire arrangements etc. was managed by the said SPM.

3.     The SSPOs whom we suspect as a Co offender in the frauds with the collusion for the enactment of the drama. While tracing the records the SSPOs Shri. M. P. Rao, it is stated that he covered up the fraud amounting to several lakhs of rupees in encashment of NSCs by his wife Smt. Mangadevi while she was working as PA, Maharanipet, Visakhapatnam. When the CBI found a prima facie case against her and remitted the case for departmental action, he managed to get voluntary retirement for his wife with the help of the then PMG, Vizag who is very close to the SPM who defrauded in this case.

4       The said SSPO, it is stated, is having benami properties in his wife’s name and also in the names of many relatives .Shri. CKLVN Murthy, the Supdt. RMS ‘V’ Division is residing in his house on rent basis and every month remitting rent to the said SSPOs which has not been shown in the property returns of the said officer submitted to the Department.

5       It is widely spoken that in speed post fraud committed in Visakhapatnam by one Suribabu nearly about Rs. 5 lakhs, the SSPOs is having a role.

6       It is most pertinent to mention that the SPM Shri. R. N. Prasad who committed the fraud was absented nearly 2 years and only with the help of the said SSPOs he was reinstated and posted as SPM M. V. Palem SO.

7       The IR 2007 reveals that he had committed many irregularities as SPM in the said office and the said MP Rao who inspected the office has condoned all the irregularities.

8       The irregularities mentioned in IR 2008 by the Inspector were also condoned by the said SSPOs. The same inspector went on inspection on 3.12.2009 and reported about suspected frauds and the same Sri. M. P. Rao directed him to come back and do the inspection later.

9.  Accordingly the attempted theft and burning of selected records on the night of 05.12.2009 is an attempted move with the collusion of the SSPOs to destroy the records and the role of Divisional Head cannot be ignored.

10. It is further pertinent to mention that even through the fraud came into light on 07.12.2009 the said SSPos permitted the said SPM for another one week and paved way for manipulating the remaining records.

11. The fraud is identified as Rs. 70 lakhs for the period between the inspection of 2008 and 2009. The period before 2008 was not verified since the inspection was done by SSPOs himself in 2007. 

The above are the real facts and suppression of materials to the Directorate in the vigilance. 

The following are the other points

1.     There is no proper investigation into the episode by the All India and circle level team and merely the report of the DPS was relied upon. The said SPM is possessing properties in his name and Jointly with another lady postal official who is not his wife even though living jointly.

2.     The Administration till this minute not evinced any action to attach the properties under the Public Accounts Default Act or any Public Demand Recovery Act in force in Andhra Pradesh.

3.     The fraud occurred due to the issue of two cheques for each payment by the then Postmaster Shri NRK Sastry. He was also the main culprit in replacement of daily account and provided way to burn the records on the same night. He has been simply proceeded under Rule 16 and now offered regular promotions. 

When the Divisional unions continued the agitation for a long demanding a CBI enquiry, nothing was initiated due to the stand taken by the administration. When the issue was taken by the circle union with the CPMG demanding CBI enquiry, the CPMG has replied in writing that it is not a fit case for remitting to CBI. We do not understand then, what case will be fit other than this to be dealt by the CBI.

When the SSPOs, Post Master and senior officers were simply let off by suppressing their role in the said fraud and their inaction in confiscating the properties of the culprit to make good the loss, action is being initiated against the innocent officials at the last date of their retirement with the charges that if the vouchers would have been verified and checked with the remittance of cheque, the fraud would  have been averted. Resultantly all their retirement benefits are withheld like in the case of Smt. K. Subhadramna, APM (SB) and Shri. GE Livingston, retired Dy. Post Master despite the fact that in the case of Subhadramna the IO has concluded in its report as not proved. However the Disciplinary Authority has not disposed the case and render justice. Many officials working in Vizag all in a panic and there are a total demoralization due to administration’s attitude in pardoning the guilty and prosecuted the innocents. Even the information sought by the victims like a supply of IRs.etc. under RTI were denied as if it will hamper the investigation of this case.

This is nothing but to protect the officers who were guilty and contributed a lot in this episode. In another case, it was denied by the SSPOs flimsy, the copy of the same is enclosed herewith for just information.

Now the Department has identified 20 more officials in the HPO and obtained their statements in Feb 2012 on the simple and unrelated factors with the intention nothing but to fix the officials on the one pretest or the other under the contributory factor.

In this episode the SPM did not misappropriate the amount of the depositors of the MIS and RD but defrauded the money in connivance with the Postmaster by obtaining two cheques for each account for which he has been simply let off and got further promotion also. Will it be fair and will it not tantamount to the denial of the justice and fair play.

Under the circumstances it is requested that this fraud case may please be remitted to CBI for a thorough enquiry and also to confiscate the property of the culprit under AP Revenue Act besides exonerating the innocents from the imposed contributory factor.

2. Begumpet, Secunderabad Division

I wish to bring one more fraud taken place at Begumpet in Secunderabad division to the tune of Rs. 21,61,000/-. The delinquent has remitted only Rs. 5,50,000/-. The official was allowed to work in the same office from 05.07.2004 to 17.09.2011. The following information collected under RTI will reveal how the Divisional administration has favoured him and how the divisional heads were fully responsible and contributed and abetted to the fraud.

1.          Please furnish the duty period of Sri B.BalajiBabu, Postal Assistant, Gandhinagar SO (under suspension)  Begumpet SO either on regular posting or on deputation.

Ans: From 05/07/2004 to 17/09/2011

2.          Please intimate when the tenure of the said official completed at Begumpet SO ?

Ans:  the tenure of the official was completed in the year 2009

3.          How many transfer orders were issued in respect of the said official during the last four years. Kindly supply copies of the said orders

Ans: Six

4.          Please intimate whether the said transfer orders were implemented? If not whether cancelled? And if cancelled or modified by whom? Copies of the same may please be supplied.

Ans:  Transfer orders were not implemented but modified by the divisional head

5.          Whether any representation was made by the said  official against the said transfer orders? If yes please copies may pl be supplied along with the copies of office notings and orders of the SSPO`s on the subject

Ans:  No representation was made by the said official

6.          Was there any approval/permission obtained from the competent authority by the SSPO`s for exempting the official from implementing the said transfer orders? If yes copy of the same may please be supplied. If not reasons thereof may pl be intimated

Ans:  No approval/permission was obtained from the competent authority in the non implementation of the said orders.

7.          Please intimate whether the competent authority had permitted the official to continue at Begumpet SO even after completion of his tenure and if so orders   of the competent authority may please be supplied if not the official responsible for continuing may be informed

Ans: Begumpet PO was identified under project arrow and no system administrator was working at Begumpet SO. Mr. V. Balajibabu was identified as a system administrator and he was looking after the technical aspects at Begumpet SO. So at the oral request of the SPM, Begumpet and at the oral request of the official he was allowed to continue at Begumpet SO.

8.          What is the defrauded/misappropriated Govt. money by said  official at Begumpet SO as on date?

Ans: The amount fraud detected so far is Rs.21,66,100/-

9.          Kindly intimate the period during which the said misappropriation/frauds were committed by the official i.e. whether during his regular tenure or during his extended period of tenure?

Ans: The said misappropriation/frauds were committed during the regular period of official

10.       Please furnish how many times inspections/verifications were done by the inspecting authorities at Begumpet SO  since last five years. Please supply copies of IR/VRs (paras in respect of SB Branch only) and also supply all the copies of compliance reports from the concerned.

Ans: Four inspections/verifications were carried out and one inspection during 2010 was commenced and IRs for the year 2010 is yet to be received. Copies of compliance reports are not available.

11.       Please furnish the names of the officials who worked as SPMs and Sr. P.As at Begumpet SO during the last 5 years (Names, designation and period format).

Ans: Supplied the information by the divisional administration.7 officials worked during the period.

12.       Please furnish whether there are any SB objections (or Special report) raised by  Secunderabad HO/SBCO on the transactions took place at Begumpet SO since last four years? If yes copies of SB Objections/special reports, file notings and orders of the SSPOs if any may please be supplied

Ans: Objections/reports received from Sr. Postmaster, Secunderabad HO in r/s of all the offices including Begumpet were sent to concerned SPMs for reconciliation the discrepancies and to report results.

13.       How many PM/SPMs reported to your office that no SB record/Updated SB record available at their respective offices? Please intimate the Names of the HO/SOs and intimate the action taken by your office on such reports? Please supply copy of file notings and orders of the SSPOs if any in this regard

Ans: No such information is available at this end.

14.       As per the prescribed questioner of Inspection of SOs, checking of Register of Pass books (Pass books Stock Register) is mandatory? As such Pl intimate

a.     Whether the inspecting authorities under your jurisdiction and higher authorities while inspecting the Begumpet SO had been checked the said register and furnished remarks? (in the last four years)

b.     If so the whether the same was in order and satisfactory on the date of inspection? (in the last four years)

c.      Pl intimate whether compliance reports from the concerned were received in time and properly when Copies of IR/VR paras sent for compliance to HO /SOs ? (In the last four years)

d.     Whether they are kept on record properly? If so copy of the same may please be supplied.

e.     Please intimate the names and designations of the inspecting officers who inspected Begumpet SO during the last four years and their observation/remarks in respect of register of passbooks at Begumpet SO as the same is considered to be very important to detect and locate irregularities leading to frauds.

Ans:     (a)        2008-2009       yes

(b)       2008-2009 Not Satisfactory

(c )       Compliance reports not received from HO/SO though several reminders

(d)       As at (c )

(e)        2008-2009 Sri D. V. Mahidhar ASP, 2010-2011 Sri Ch. Vijaygopal (IR of 2010 not received)

I would like to inform that the said misappropriation taken place during the regular tenure of the said official i.e. before 2009. But actually the charges mentioned in the charge sheet are related to 2010 and 2011. The divisional administration is suppressing the facts. By this, it is evident that the divisional administration is totally failed in detecting and stopping the misappropriation at Begumpet SO by continuing the said official beyond his tenure without any representation and permission from competent authority.

However, in future, they will be let off and the innocent PAs working under Secunderabad HO will be asked to move good the loss sustained to the department. There is no finding in the Circle/All India level inquiry in the fraud case about the role and responsibilities of the officers concerned. There is no action taken to confiscate the properties and exerting pressure to recover the amount.

It is pertinent to mention that both the cases are fit to be remitted to CBI, the Circle administration is reluctant and protecting the officers who are responsible and punishing the innocents on the pretext or the other. There are many more cases similar to these and in all the cases the innocents are being caught and the officers responsible are being pardoned. In Tamilnadu circle the SSPOs allowing an individual as SPM over eight years continuous paved way to defraud to the extent around one crore in Chennai Central division is allowed peacefully to retire without any scar and later the contributory factors will be misused against the PAS who are not at all responsible for the fraud.

The above two cases will establish the truth prevailing in the field level and the need for comprehensive instructions to guard against the misuse of contributory negligence on the innocent officials who are not at all responsible.

May I expect your response Madam,

With profound regards,