57. Model Representation
The person who has detected a fraud has been charge sheeted has subsequently been charge sheeted as if he is negligent of his duty. This was the reply given at that time.
Sub: Representation Regarding Charges Under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965
I am writing to request your kind consideration and a prompt decision regarding the charges against me under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. I believe I have been wrongly charged and seek justice in this matter.
I was the one who initially detected the irregularity/fraud at the Cement Factory Sub Post Office and reported it to the SDI (P) and the divisional office.
The timelines of the events are furnished hereunder:
1. 05 Jan 2022: While checking pending transit entries in the SAP system, I found a suspicious entry posted by the …………….. Sub Post Office on 02 Jan 2025. The entry, dated 07 Nov 2021, was for Rs 5 Lakh.
2. I immediately directed the SPM to clear the transit entry.
3. 07 Jan 2022 & 13 Jan 2022: The entries remained uncleared, and more suspicious entries appeared.
4. 16 Jan 2022: I issued a registered notice to the SPM seeking an explanation and informed the SDI (P) about the continued inaction.
5. My checks revealed suspicious transactions at the ………….SO.
6. My reporting led to the exposure of the fraud and prevented further loss of government funds.
It is deeply unfair that I am being charge-sheeted for uncovering this fraud. I should have been rewarded, not punished.
Whereas I have been charge sheeted with flimsy reasons instead of appreciating my sincere work.
1. The charge sheet alleges that I, as a Sub Account Assistant, failed to match the closing balance of the daily transaction report with the opening balance of the next day. However, Rule 45 of Postal Manual Volume VI Part-III does not assign this responsibility to the Sub Account Assistant.
2. Rule 1 of Postal Volume VI Part-III concerns the Postmaster's supervision of subordinate Postmasters and their efficiency, not the detection of individual fraud. I actively detected and reported the fraud.
3. Rule 64 of FHB-II makes the Postmaster responsible for returns to the PAO, not for verifying the work of the Sub Account official. Also, SAP implementation has changed the verification process.
I request that the charges against me please be dropped. I acted diligently, prevented a significant financial loss, and upheld the department's integrity.
Thank you for your time and kind consideration.
Post a Comment