When anyone was ordered to perform the additional duties
along with the regular post and if any adverse notice was issued, he can use
the content while replying to the show cause notice.
Continuation of 2.4.2025 post on the topic
7. "The appellate authority's decision merely reiterates the charges without addressing the specific objections raised in my appeal dated ……….. The entire charge sheet is flawed, as it disregards the inherent challenges and common operational issues present in divisional post offices. Expecting 100% efficiency with a 50% staffing level is an unrealistic and unjust basis for disciplinary action. Furthermore, I had no direct supervisory role over the Branch Postmaster (BPM) who committed the frauds. The appellate authority failed to recognize the deficiencies within the charge sheet. I respectfully request a thorough reconsideration of my appeal to reach a fair and just final decision."
8. The appellate authority's assessment of my workload during the relevant period, during which I managed the responsibilities of three supervisory positions, is inadequate. The decision relies solely on the divisional head's narrative, ignoring the significant challenges I faced. I categorically assert that there was no lack of devotion to duty. To suggest that managing three supervisory roles simultaneously constitutes a lack of devotion is fundamentally incorrect. Working extended hours to provide adequate supervision for these positions demonstrates dedication, not negligence. The charge of lack of devotion to duty is entirely unfounded.
(i). The appellate authority has failed to consistently enforce the provisions of Rule 49(5) of the CBS Manual 2018 across the region's post offices. This is a widespread issue, and strict adherence to this rule is often impractical. The disciplinary authority should have addressed this systemic issue before initiating disciplinary action based on this rule. This particular lapse is not a direct cause of the frauds committed at the Branch Office (BO). The divisional head's failure to charge all postmasters for similar lapses raises serious questions about the fairness and consistency of the disciplinary process.
(ii). The selective application of disciplinary action is concerning. The appellate authority's focus on my case, while overlooking similar violations by other supervisors, is unjust. I joined duty on …….., and it is unethical to hold me accountable for pending work from previous supervisors, which should have been completed by ………. The responsibility for addressing these pending tasks lies with the individuals who were in charge before my arrival. These are common operational challenges acknowledged by the disciplinary authority. The divisional head's failure to take action against previous supervisors and other postmasters for similar violations reveals a pattern of selective enforcement. The appellate authority's observations appear designed to protect those who consistently violate this provision.
(iii). The appellate authority's assessment fails to consider the specific nature of the frauds at the BO. Passbook ……… was free of fraudulent activity when it was initially received for First Party Booking (FPB). The subsequent frauds occurred after this point. Therefore, attributing the general lapses cited in the charge sheet to the prevention of these specific frauds is illogical. The appellate authority has not accurately assessed the modus operandi of the frauds or the context of the general lapses cited in my case."
Post a Comment