மகிழ்ச்சியான தருணம் - பேரவை முகாம் பயிற்சியாளர்களுக்கு மனமார்ந்த வாழ்த்துக்கள்!!!

 There was an alleged fraud by misusing the date stamp in the bulk mail center and the in charge was charge sheeted. The following was the reply given at that time. 

Subject: Memo of Charge - Inherent Defect and Illegality – Request to drop the charges

I respectfully submit my objection to the memo of charge issued against me. I contend that the allegation is fundamentally flawed, as it fails to adhere to the established guidelines and instructions stipulated in D.G., P&T’s letter No.114/176/78-Disc.II dated 13.02.1981. This non-compliance renders the memo of charge inherently defective and therefore illegal.

The aforementioned letter explicitly states that while disciplinary authorities possess the power to penalize officials for valid reasons, the specific penalty of recovery can only be applied when the official's lapses have directly resulted in fraud or misappropriation, or have obstructed inquiries to the extent that the actual perpetrator cannot be identified.

Crucially, the letter mandates that the charge sheet be comprehensive and clearly articulate not only the nature of the official's alleged lapses but also the modus operandi of the fraud, its specific details, and how it is alleged that the fraud or misappropriation could have been prevented but for those lapses. Furthermore, it must be demonstrated how successful inquiries could have identified the specific point at which the fraud was committed and by whom.

In the present case, the imputation of misconduct is strikingly deficient in these essential details. It fails to specify the time of the alleged use of the date stamp, nor does it explain how it was determined that the date stamp was used while in my custody, thus establishing my responsibility. The statement of misconduct is also silent on how the date stamp was used after the close of office, by whom, and, critically, it fails to explain how my securing the date stamp in joint custody on the alleged dates would have prevented its purported misuse.

These critical omissions render the memo of charge in direct contravention of Rules 106 and 107 of the P&T Manual Volume III, as well as the clear instructions outlined in the aforementioned letter. These rules stipulate that in cases involving recovery of pecuniary losses suffered by the Government due to negligence or breach of orders by a government servant, the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when it is unequivocally established that the government servant was responsible for specific acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules, and that such negligence or breach directly caused the loss.

I respectfully assert that the statement of imputation of misconduct in my case fails to meet any of these established guidelines. It fails to demonstrate how I am responsible for the alleged loss, nor does it address the critical question of why the loss could not be recovered from the Mass Mailers themselves by lodging a police complaint for defrauding the Government of such a substantial sum.

In the absence of these fundamental facts, the allegation appears to be based on mere presumption, rather than the solid, verifiable facts required by the rules. Therefore, I submit that the memo of charge is fundamentally flawed, both procedurally and substantively, and is thus void and illegal.

I therefore request to kindly drop the charges and exonerate me from the charges in this case.