Draft prepared in a case of contributory negligence.
While reading such drafts, you can have some idea in drafting on your own.
I submit that the allegation was not framed as per the guidelines and instructions contained in D.G., P&T’s letter No.114/176/78-Disc.II dated 13.02.1981 and so the memo of charge is inherently defective and so illegal. The above letter clearly lays down that “It should be clearly understood by all the disciplinary authorities that while an official can be punished for good and sufficient reasons, the penalty of recovery can be awarded only if the lapses on his part have either led to the commission of the fraud or misappropriation or frustrated the enquiries as a result of which it has not been possible to locate the real culprit.
It is, therefore, obligatory that the charge sheet should be quite elaborate and should not only indicate clearly the nature of lapses on the part of the particular official but also indicate the Modus - operandi of the frauds and their particulars and how it can be alleged that but for the lapses on the part of the official, the fraud or misappropriation could be avoided or that the successful enquiries could be made to locate the stage at which the particular fraud had been committed by a particular person.”.
In the present case the imputation did not specify the time of the use of the alleged date stamp and how it was construed that the date stamp was used while under my custody and so I am responsible. It was not brought out in the statement of misconduct as to how the date stamp was used after close of office and by whom the date stamp was used and it was not specified that had I secured the date stamp in my joint custody on these alleged dates, the misuse of the same could have been avoided.
Since the above details were not furnished in the statement of misconduct, the memo of charge is issued in complete violation of Rule 106 and 107 of P&T Manual Volume III and the instructions in the letter ibid. The Rule states that “In case of proceedings relating to recovery of pecuniary losses caused to the Government by negligence or breach of orders by a Government servant, the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when it established that the Government servant was responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and that such negligence or breach caused the loss”.
I humbly submit that the statement of imputation of misconduct in the present case did not satisfy any of the above guidelines such as how I am responsible for the loss or as to why the loss could not be recovered from the Mass Mailers by lodging police complaint for defrauding the Government for such a huge sum. It is submitted that in the absence of above facts the allegation is only based on presumption and not on solid facts as required under these rules and so the memo of charge is void and illegal.
Post a Comment