59. Model Representation - For a minor lapse punishment was accorded to the Accountant of the HO under Rule 16. Appeal was also rejected. The following is the gist of petition we drafted in this case
Sub: Petition Against Orders Confirming Punishment - Rule 16 Charges
This petition, submitted under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, seeks a revision of the appellate authority's order that upheld the punishment imposed on me.
While working as Accountant at …………, I faced a minor penalty proceeding initiated under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The memorandum of charges alleged that I sent claim papers for an ex-MTS to the Divisional office a second time without checking the service book, which could have led to double payment. This was considered a lack of care, devotion to duty, misbehavior, disrespect, and a violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) & 3(1)(iii) of CCS Conduct Rules 1964.
I orally apologized to the Senior Postmaster for this inadvertent mistake, believing my apology was accepted. However, the disciplinary authority's order imposed a reduction of pay by one stage for six months from Jan 2022.
In my appeal to the Sr. Supdt of Post Offices, ……… Division, I explained that the resending of the claim was unintentional, due to pressure in the accounts branch. I emphasized that the mistake was not deliberate, and the heavy workload caused me to overlook the service book verification. I argued that these extenuating factors and my unblemished service record should be considered. I denied the allegations of disrespect and misbehavior, stating that these charges were serious and unfounded, especially considering my oral apology. I contended that the charges did not fall under the cited rules, and the punishment, effective from 01.01.2022, violated CCS CCA Rules 1965 by being retrospective.
Drawing on the Madras High Court's ruling in Sabapathy vs. State of Tamilnadu (1985), I asserted that the charges were vague and lacked specific allegations, and that according to DG P&T No 114/176/78 – Disc II dated 13.2.1981, charges cannot be based on presumption. I felt the disciplinary authority did not properly consider these points or my service record, and instead issued a harsh punishment.
Unfortunately, the Appellate Authority's order dated 23.10.2022 rejected my appeal, stating that I admitted my mistake. However, the appellate authority failed to acknowledge the extenuating circumstances, the fact that the mistake was inadvertent, and that I had orally apologized. I reiterated that the retrospective nature of the punishment order violated CCS CCA Rules 1965 and was therefore invalid.
Furthermore, I believe the appellate process was compromised. The Senior PM who issued the punishment order also handled the appeal file as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, influencing the decision, which violates the principle of natural justice and CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The appellate authority's claim that there is no record of my personal appearance before the Sr. PM is not valid because of the disciplinary authority's bias. The appellate order also failed to address the points raised in my appeal, indicating a lack of proper consideration.
To reiterate, the punishment order was imposed retrospectively, violating CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. The extenuating circumstances and the absence of ill-intent were ignored. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court's judgment in J. Ahmed Vs. UOI (AIR 1979 SC 1022), an innocent mistake cannot be labeled as misconduct, and as per rule 204-A of Postal Volume –III, an honest error is excusable. Finally, the appellate authority's interpretation of non-reply to the charge sheet as insubordination is incorrect, as my actions were not willful disobedience.
I have served with integrity and dedication for 20 years. The charge sheet and subsequent punishment are unjustifiable. Therefore, I respectfully request that you consider my petition and overturn the appellate order. I humbly pray for justice and a favorable decision.
Post a Comment