64. Model Representation - Failure to call for SB & SSA PBs of PCB BO for entry of interest
One Rule 16 charge sheet was issued for the Failure to call for SB & SSA PBs of PCB BO for entry of interest for year 2014-15 & 2015-16 and not prepared & forwarded the list of PBs not received for interest posting by 20th July 2015 & 2016 to SDH and also failed to maintain special error book against rule 76(b) 1 & 76 (b) 2 with Rule 75(1) of erst while POSB Manual Vol I. This was the reply given in this case.
At the outset, I deny the allegations and assert that I am not at fault in the case framed against me. The primary allegation against me is the purported failure to notice a discrepancy between the specimen signature and the signature on the warrant of payment, allegedly violating Rule 33(6)(i) and 33(6)(iii) of the erstwhile POSB Manual Volume I.
I humbly submit that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, I diligently verified the signatures on the warrants of payment against the specimen signatures using my naked eyes and with all my human capabilities. Despite this careful scrutiny, no discernible discrepancy in the strokes of the signatures could be detected.
The second allegation pertains to my alleged failure to raise an objection regarding the non-furnishing of the full address of the witness for the Left Thumb Impression (LTI) of the depositor, citing Rule 33(3)(c) of the erstwhile POSB Manual Volume I. In this regard, it may kindly be noted that the aforementioned rule explicitly states:
“When payment is made to an illiterate depositor, his thumb impression must be attested by the signature of a respectable witness who is personally acquainted with him and known to PO.”
In the present case, the Post Office involved is a Branch Office, where the transaction was initiated and concluded. Therefore, the responsibility for ascertaining the credentials of the witness rested with the Branch Postmaster (BPM), and the staff at the Account Office (AO) had no authority to adjudicate this matter. Furthermore, the rule does not explicitly mandate the obtaining of the full address of the witness.
Based on the above, it is evident that I am not directly responsible for any loss sustained by the Government in this instance, and therefore, no action should be taken against me. The onus of responsibility in this case does not lie with me, and consequently, I should not be proceeded against. I submit that merely on technical formalities, overlooking the pertinent facts, extenuating circumstances, and realities of the situation, I should not be alleged and charged.
I submit the following points for your kind consideration, urging the dropping of these proceedings:
1. Rule 107 of P&T Vol. III explicitly states:
"In the case of loss caused to the Government, the competent disciplinary authority should correctly assess in a realistic manner the contributory negligence on the part of an officer, and while determining any omission or lapses on the part of an officer, the bearing of such lapses on the loss considered and the extenuating circumstances in which the duties were performed by the officer, shall be given due weight."
In my case, any alleged lapse was not the direct or proximate cause of the loss, and the circumstances under which I performed my duties warrant due consideration.
2. I wish to submit that the Directorate has provided clear instructions vide its letter No. 8-4/2005-Inv. dated 15.5.2008, which inter alia states:
“It has been brought to the notice of the Directorate that staff is being harassed on contributory factors for simple and flimsy reasons by misusing the provisions of unbecoming of Govt. servant deviating the ruling contained in the various Departmental volumes and huge recoveries are being ordered by the Disciplinary Authorities in contravention of the provisions of the rules."
The present allegations against me appear to fall under the category of "simple and flimsy reasons" as outlined in this Directorate's letter.
3. In this context, it is reiterated that acts and conduct amounting to misconduct are prescribed in GOI's decision (23) and cases of trivial nature should be eliminated vide GOI's decision (24) below Rule 3 C of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. 1964. The alleged lapses in my case, viewed objectively, appear to be of a trivial nature and do not constitute misconduct warranting disciplinary action.
4. Regarding the imposition of penalty or recovery, DGP&T order No. (12) below Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 stipulates that:
"...the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when it is established that the Government Servant was responsible for particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and that such negligence or breach caused the loss."
In my case, it has not been established that my actions were the direct cause of the loss sustained.
From the above, it is evident that I should not be made a scapegoat and held responsible on frivolous and fabricated grounds. I acted in good faith and with honesty towards the Department, and any unintentional errors should be condoned as per Rule 204 (A) in Volume II.
Furthermore, I submit that I am not directly responsible for the loss sustained by the Department as per Rule 11(iii) of CCS CCA Rules 1965. I further draw your attention to the Directorate letter No. 15-9/74-INV dated 10.02.1975, which inter alia emphasizes the need to consider extenuating factors and the question of recovery, stating:
"However, it has been observed that recoveries for loss are being affected even from the officials held remotely guilty of contributory negligence. This creates a feeling of frustration and insecurity, instead of aiming at efficient and proper services, the staffs are prone to adopt a defensive posture to work. It is, therefore, necessary that these rules be implemented in proper spirit. The primary consideration need not be question of recovery of the loss in full. Sometimes, the supervisory officials who may be remotely connected with the case, are punished with recovery solely for this purpose. The default of, (or lapses of), each official should be judged carefully, to see if his offence merits recovery and/or any other punishment. Pecuniary responsibility need not be fixed for mere routine and petty lapses. For effecting recovery negligence should have been the direct or proximate cause of the loss to the Government and loss sustained was a probable consequence of that lapse."
I am fortified by the Directorate's orders stated above, and I respectfully submit that I may be excused for the alleged lapses, which were not the direct contributing factor to the loss sustained due to the fraud. Departmental guidelines have consistently emphasized that recovery should not be effected from officials unless they are directly responsible for the loss.
In accordance with Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 Rule 11(3), which pertains to Recovery:
"Unless the persons concerned is directly responsible for misappropriating any amount or for any pecuniary loss to the Govt.-- No recovery can be made from him."
I reiterate that I am not directly responsible for any misappropriation or pecuniary loss to the Government in this case.
I further submit that in the case of Ramaiah vs UOI 1985 Lab IC NOC 4, it was held that the decision of the disciplinary authority must be based on legal evidence, and even a minor penalty cannot be imposed on suspicion alone.
It is well-settled law, as held in the case of Sri R.Balakrishnan v Union of India & others in OA 1496 of 1992 decided on 02.12.93 in CAT, Madras Bench - 166 Swamy's Case Law Digest 1994 I:
"Unless and until the quantum of the pecuniary loss caused by negligence is properly assessed and quantified, there can be no punishment of recovery from pay".
Accordingly, there should be no attempt to make any recovery from me.
In the case of Smt. Kalpana Shinde and ors v Union of India - OA Nos. 344/2003, 353/03, 354/03, 355/03 & 357/03-decided on 22.11.2004- CAT ,Jabalpur Bench (Circuit at Gwalior) -ATJ 2005(1)-45, it was held that as per Rule 11(3) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965:
"Recovery should not be made unless the persons concerned is directly responsible for misappropriating any amount or for causing any pecuniary loss to the Govt.-- No recovery can be made from him."
In this case, I am not at all directly responsible for the loss sustained by the Department, and hence, no recovery should be made from me.
Therefore, I humbly beseech the benign and erudite SSPOs, …………. Division, to drop the action under Rule 16, considering the above submissions and my unblemished service record so far. I earnestly request to be excused, for which kind act I shall
Post a Comment