Model Representation - 23. Reply to the Rule 16 charge sheet in one interesting case

One charge sheet was issued for a minor lapse against the official and after submission of reply the charge sheet was withdrawn and subsequently another charge sheet was issued. That is against to natural justice . The following is the reply submitted at that time

A kind reference is invited to the memos cited above. I have been directed to submit my representation for the rule-16 charge sheet leveled against me through memo cited under Ref (i) henceforth will be called as Annexure A. I have submitted my representation to the SPOs on ……2020 henceforth will be called as representation, wherein I have mentioned that the charges leveled against me are not in consonance with the instructions quoted in the Annexure A.

On receipt of my representation, SPOs has accepted that the charges leveled against me are not in consonance with the instructions quoted in the Annexure A and dropped the charges leveled against me through the memo cited under Ref(ii) henceforth will be called as Annexure B.

Then a fresh rule 16 charge sheet was leveled against me through the memo cited under Ref(iii) over the same set of facts and without any new findings over annexure A and I have been directed to submit my representation once again for the same set of facts.

Shri. ………. worked as MPCM Counter PA from Sep 2015 to January 2017 at ……… HO has accepted PLI Premium presented across the counter, given receipts to the customers and cancelled the receipts subsequently on the same date and utilized the money for his personal use. No error entry was made by him for the transactions cancelled by him.

On ………., while I was working as APM (counter) ……….. H.O, He accepted PLI premium from the insurant Shri………. (TN- ) for Rs…….. and cancelled the same on that day itself. Later on 2…………. He credited the amount to the PLI policy No TN-………..

Thus, Rule 16 Charge sheet was imputed against me for

(a)    Failed to take all possible steps, as a supervisor, to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of the said …………., P.A ……… HO, who was under her control and authority, on the above said date violating the provisions contained Rule 3 (2) (i) of C.C.S.(Conduct) Rules 1964 and thereby she failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty as required in Rule 3(1)(ii) of C.C.S.(Conduct) rules 1964.

In this regard I submit that, On …………., I was directed by the Postmaster to work as APM (Counter) apart from my regular work as CPC In charge, as the regular official who was working as APM was on leave. Shri…………… PA, was working as the MPCM counter PA. I had a strict supervision over the two counters apart from the role of CPC-Incharge.

After the end of counter hours, I have checked the reports of both the counters. I have inquired both the counter PAs that whether any cancelled entries were there and they both replied negative and no suspicious transactions were noted as per record. I have confirmed the same by the cancelled entries report in MM software and I have also checked the Error book and found no entries are there. The Zero Report of Meghdoot Millenium Software, Detailed and consolidated booking report and cancelled transactions report in MM software, Day end collection report in Macmish and all were tallied and all the reports produced were matched with Daily account.

I have put complete efforts and have taken all possible steps as a supervisor to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of the PAs who was working at both the counters.

During ……. 2017, the misappropriation of money at the MPCM counter done by Shri……….. was enlightened and he himself admitted all the misappropriations done by him in his statement given before ASP, …….. on ………..2017. He reported that he has cancelled the premium receipts without the knowledge of APM and thus on ……….., the cancelled receipt belonging to the policy number (TN-…….) was not brought to my knowledge.

I further submit that,

• At that time in Macmish software, there was no provision to check the cancelled entries.
• It was taught in the training to check the day end collection report of Macmish and to compare with the Zero report and Daily account. As such I have checked all the above aspects.
• Only on ………. instructions regarding Macmish workflow, Dos and Don’ts and other instructions were circulated vide PLI Directorate Letter No: 6-01/2011-LI(Pt) dated 21.12.2016

As the incident was happened on ………, much before the instructions in the PLI Directorate Letter has implemented, I am unaware to check the detailed collection report. But, I have not deviated from the main role of supervisions and I have exercised vigilant supervision over the work of counter PA with the rulings existed at that time.

Further, in the Annexure B, it was mentioned that “As per the instruction No.3 of Rule 15 of C.C.S. (C.C.A) Rules, 1965 the charges contained in Annexure A was dropped forthwith. I would like to submit that the Rule 15 of C.C.S.(C.C.A) Rules deals with action on Inquiry report. In respect the Rule 16 Charge sheet leveled against me, no inquiry was conducted as on date and no new findings was there over the existing charges.

I submit that the issue of second charge sheet on the same incident after submitting the reply by me is not permissible as per the law of the land. When the charge sheet is dropped after submission of reply, it means that the reply is satisfactory, acceptable and genuine and on which the further proceeding could not be made. The issue of second charge sheet for the same incident with different clause is nothing but show the biased action against me to implement the pre determination in punishing me on one pretext or the other in this episode which is tantamount to the principle of the natural justice and constitutional provisions.

It is pertinent to mention that a fresh charge sheet (Annexure C) was leveled against me on ……… after my representation to the earlier charge sheet (Annexure A). It is against to the orders on the subject and The Jabalpur High Court held in the case of Chandrasekar vs Union of India, ATC 1990 (12) P 868 emphasizes that Issue of second charge sheet on same allegations, cancelling first one where the first one has been replied by the employee was held to be not permissible. This has been accepted by the Department and caused orders earlier. Hence, I submit that the issue of fresh charge sheet after my reply to the previous one is void.

However, I am submitting that I have not neglected my duty, not deviated from the main role of supervisions, exercised vigilant supervision over the work of counter PAs, taken all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all government servants under my control and authority as enunciated in Rule 3.[2](i) of C.C.S.(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and I have maintained absolute devotion to duty as enunciated in Rule 3(i)(ii) of C.C.S.(Conduct) Rules, 1964.

I request that the charges may please be dropped since I am not at guilty and not responsible for the fraud committed by the delinquent official. However, I regret very much for the incident taken place in the branch where I was the supervisor then.