Model Representation -68
One punishment was proposed to be reviewed for the negligence of work at the time of CTS work inauguration after six months from the date of the punishment order. This was politely challenged in the following reply
Sub: Request for Review of Enhanced Punishment Proposed by Appellate Authority Under Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.
Ref: Your Review Memo No. ………… dt………….., and related disciplinary proceedings.
Respected Sir,
I am writing with utmost respect to seek your kind reconsideration of the proposed enhancement of the penalty imposed upon me under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. This proposal is outlined in your Review Memo dated ………, pertaining to the initial disciplinary action initiated by the SPOs., …………. Division (Ref. 1) following a charge sheet to which I duly replied (Ref. 2). The Disciplinary Authority subsequently imposed a minor penalty (Ref. 3), which is now subject to review.
In my detailed reply to the charge sheet, I humbly submitted my background as a promotee official, progressing from GDS BPM with limited initial exposure to advanced computer applications and the latest departmental software. Upon assuming the responsibilities of Treasurer at ……………. on ………., I have consistently discharged my duties with sincerity and without any prior complaints.
The incident in question arose immediately following the introduction of the new CTS (Cheque Truncation System) software, effective from 16.03.2020. While I attended a training session on 2.2.2020, the instruction was primarily focused on cheque scanning and data transmission to the nodal office. Crucially, no detailed guidance was provided on interpreting cheque cleared reports or the process for verifying their accuracy.
Given these circumstances, the cheques mentioned in the charge sheet were processed between 17.03.2020 and 18.03.2020, at the very nascent stage of the new CTS implementation. I was genuinely unfamiliar with navigating this technologically advanced environment. The email received from CTS Clearing, ………….., regarding outward clearance for these dates, specifically requested a check of our MICR-wise report to confirm the record status for clearance. It further clarified that a status of "OACK RECEIVED" indicated cleared cheques. Based on this instruction and the "OACK RECEIVED" status for all five cheques in the "Outward Clearing Report," I endorsed them as 'cheques cleared' and forwarded them through the proper channels.
It was only on 13.04.2020 that I was informed of a discrepancy based on the cheque realization report from ………….. HPO, indicating the cheques were returned unrealized. Immediately upon this realization, on the same day, I made a necessary error entry (No. EE-.. dt. 13.04.2020) in the Treasury Branch and promptly informed the Divisional Office via email, followed by a formal report (Postmaster, ………. letter No. ……….. dt. 15.04.2020). This demonstrates my immediate accountability and lack of any intentional wrongdoing or negligence.
Furthermore, with the guidance of the divisional office, I took immediate remedial actions for all five cheques. I proactively engaged with the customers, explained the situation transparently, and they, in turn, provided letters to the Department expressing their understanding, resulting in the settlement of all cases without any financial loss to the Department or any complaints from the customers. This underscores my dedication to my duties and the interests of the Department and its customers.
The administrative authorities thoroughly investigated this matter, and I extended my full cooperation at all stages. The Disciplinary Authority, after a comprehensive inquiry and observing my sincere and transparent submissions, explicitly acknowledged in the punishment order:
• "The new CTS software came into effect w.e.f. 16.3.2020 and initially there were some confusions in carrying out the works relating to cheque clearance through the software."
• "The mistakes are however not intentional."
• "Further, immediate necessary actions to rectify the irregularities were taken swiftly and set right the issues without incurring any loss to the Department and also convinced the depositors satisfactorily."
• "The official has also expressed deep regrets for the mistakes and assured to be more careful in future. Hence lenient view was taken keeping his assurance."
I respectfully draw your attention to GOI's decision (23) below Rule 3 C of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which prescribes the acts and conduct that constitute misconduct. Given the unintentional nature of the error and the extenuating circumstances, it is my humble submission that my actions do not fall within the ambit of willful misconduct. Furthermore, GOI's decision (24) below the same rule emphasizes the need to eliminate cases of trivial nature. Considering the immediate rectification and absence of loss, this incident, while regrettable, should be viewed as a genuine error in a challenging transition period.
Moreover, Rule 204 (A) in Volume III of the Postal Manual explicitly states that honest errors of judgment involving financial loss may be condoned if the officer acted in good faith and did their best within their abilities. I firmly believe my actions align with this principle.
The Directorate letter No. 15-9/74-INV dated 10.02.1975 provides crucial guidelines on considering extenuating factors and assessing lapses. It emphasizes that the default or lapse of an official should be carefully judged to determine if it merits recovery and/or other punishment. In my case, the Disciplinary Authority duly considered the initial confusion with the new software as an extenuating circumstance.
Furthermore, Rules 107 & 108 of Volume III of the Postal Manual stipulate that while determining omissions or lapses, due weight shall be given to the extenuating circumstances under which the duties were performed. As clearly acknowledged by the Disciplinary Authority, the introduction of the new CTS software created a challenging environment, contributing to the unintentional error.
The Directorate's letter dated 14-11-2006 reiterated these guiding principles, emphasizing the importance of considering extenuating circumstances when evaluating omissions or lapses. It also reinforces the principle in Rule 204 (A)(1) of Volume III regarding the condoning of honest errors. The Disciplinary Authority's findings corroborate that the error was indeed a consequence of the initial phase of the new CTS implementation and was not intentional.
I must respectfully point out that the Review Memo (Ref. 4), proposing to enhance the punishment to "Reduction of pay by one stage for a period of 3 years" under Rule 29 (1)(v) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was delivered to me on 15.12.2020. Rule 29(1)(v) explicitly states that the appellate authority can revise an order "within six months of the date of the order proposed to be revised…". The original punishment order (Ref. 3) is dated 10.06.2020. Therefore, with all due respect, the review appears to have been initiated beyond the stipulated period of limitation under the said rule. While I hold the authority of the Appellate Authority in high regard, I am compelled to bring this legal aspect to your kind attention to safeguard my interests, especially when facing a significant proposed penalty for an unintentional error arising from challenging circumstances.
Prayer:
Most humbly, I appeal to the esteemed Director of Postal Services, ………Region, to kindly and sympathetically consider the points presented above, along with the relevant rules and guidelines. Given the unintentional nature of the error, the extenuating circumstances surrounding the introduction of the new CTS software, my immediate corrective actions, the absence of any loss to the Department or customer complaints, and the potential issue regarding the limitation period for the review, I earnestly request that you take a lenient view and kindly drop the proposal to enhance the punishment.
I reiterate my sincere regret for any lapse on my part and assure you that it was entirely unintentional. I humbly request that my unblemished service record from GDS to my current position be taken into consideration. I assure you of my unwavering commitment to my duties and my resolve to exercise utmost care in the future to prevent any such occurrences. I also sincerely regret any inconvenience caused to the administration.
Post a Comment