65. KNOWLEDGE SPECTRUM - DISCIPLINE - FAQ
101. Whether the officers responsible shall be brought under the subsidiary offenders or not and what is the guidelines on this?
One of the Service Unions has raised an issue that whenever any fraud takes place, the mail overseers and Postal Assistants are made responsible for the fraud, while the other authorities like IPOs, ASPOs and Divisional Heads etc. who may also be responsible are allowed to go Scot free.
2. In this matter, I am directed to reiterate that the identification of offenders in a fraud case should be done with due care in a just and equitable manner. All the officials who are responsible should be identified as offenders keeping in view their responsibility/role in the case and no one should be allowed to go Scot-frees.
(DG (P) No. 17-3/2006-Inv dated 08.09.2006)
102. If the loss sustained to the Department is recovered and found to be nil, whether cases shall be reviewed to refund the recovery made from the subsidiary offenders?
The case has to be reviewed by the competent authority for imposing an appropriate penalty. That authority will not, however, be competent to impose a penalty higher than that of recovery.
(Rule III Volume III)
103. Whether any punishment can be imposed with retrospective effect?
Penalty order cannot be issued retrospectively; such an order can be given effect only prospectively. It will become operative either from the date of issue of the order or from the date of its communication.
104. Whether the punishment of reduction of pay awarded under Rule 16 will affect pension?
No. Any minor punishment awarded under Rule 16 should not affect the pension. Otherwise, the punishment becomes invalid. But if an inquiry as specified under Rule 16 (1) (b) is conducted, such a punishment can be imposed.
Post a Comment