Model Representation 19. Draft on contributory negligence Another interesting draft

 Model Representation 19. Draft on contributory negligence Another interesting draft

One major SB fraud had taken place in one BO and the fraud was unearthed after 13 years. Later, in order to recover the amount, one SPM who was officiating was identified as a subsidiary offender to recover the loss sustained to the Department. Inspecting officers were untouched. This was the reply submitted on that occasion.

Sub: Submission of explanation in lieu of identification of subsidary offender and recovery of loss sustained by the department - Reg. 

I pray to submit the following for your benign consideration with fervent hope of getting justice in response to the letter cited under Reference which was communicated to me on …. 

Sir, Kindly permit me to begin this as an intra about me and a gist of the erstwhile events till date, which I believe would be of immense help to your good self  in comprehending my issue.

I had worked as SPM, ………. SO during the period from …………2015 to ……….2016 to the maximum tune of only 9 months.

The Fraud was said to be committed from 2004 to 02.11.2017 in ……… BO a/w ……… SO by Sri……… GDSMD(POD) for almost 13 years. This may be kindly taken note of.

 Non adherence to the principals of Natural Justice :

Vide my representation dated ……...2021, 1 I’ve prayed the benign SPOS to ponder over and introspect the below mentioned documents in original based on the procedural lapses leveled against me.

1.    SB-Cards(Account opening form),SB-7A(Closure form) for the Account numbers ……….,……,……,……

2.    Inspection report of ………. B.O for the year 2015, 2016, conducted by Sub divisional inspector/ASP/Divisional Head.

Vide the D.O letter cited under Ref2, Only the SB-7 Voucher pertains to the withdrawal allowed in RD Account no…………. for Rs 3000 dated ……...2015 is provided for my perusal and the other documents like SB-Card for the half withdrawal RD Accounts ………………….,which I have sought to introspect is not provided to me with a mere remark that it has got no relevancy to the show cause notice issued by this office letter dated ………….2021.

Since procedural lapses against me, I have the right to introspect the documents which are also directly/indirectly related to the cause of fraud.. The inspection report of ……….BO for the previous years of 2015,2016 is also not provided. When the timely verification of passbooks during MO visit/Sub divisional head visits also could have averted the loss caused to the department.

As per DG(P) No. 17-3/2006 – Inv dated 08.09.2006, the identification of offenders in 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. This indicates that I have become a scapegoat in this case while the other authorities were allowed to go scot free.

As per Rule 37 of P&T Manual Volume III, if the charged official requested to access the relevant document, it should be provided and in case of any rejection, it should be reasoned. Hence the version of competent authority is against the rule 37 of P&T Manual Volume III  has not stated any reasons and merely rejected the perusal of other vital documents stating it has got no relevancy to the show cause notice issued.

This is against to the principles of natural justice. This amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity and denial of natural justice.

Denial of Procedural lapses

At the outset I deny all the procedural lapses leveled against me vide the entire charges framed against me F/VII/1/……./dlgs dated at ……… the …….2021.In this context I humbly putforth the following facts :

1. On ……..2016 I had closed the RD accounts bearing Account no…………. of the same person Name:……… as per rules envisaged in the POSB(CBS) Manual Volume Rule no:81. Since SB-3 Card is not traceable I had obtained the revised SB-3 Card with supportive documents (Voter id) as per the Appendix XII in lieu of Know your customer(KYC) as per the POSB(CBS) Manual Volume.

 While persuing the documents in the Division office it has come to the notice that two RD Passbooks has been issued for the same RD Account no:……….. in the year 2013 .One RD passbook was issued with amount, date stamp impression, and SPM Signature on the date …….2013. For that Passbook only I had passed the closed warrant after obtaining KYC documents duly signed by the Customer, attested by the BPM and with impression of date stamp of Branch office .

On subsequent date of RD new account opening for the account no: ………… i.e on ……..2013, one duplicate RD Passbook has been issued for the same account no:……… bearing date stamp impression of ……...2013 without SPM Signature. It has been noted as Duplicate Passbook.

If the inspection authorities checked the stock balance of pass books  on the inspection date  as per the SO inspection questionnaire 2018 Point no:49(b) then it would have come to light in the year 2013 itself.

2. It is evident after perusing the Documents that the RD Account no: ……………. has been prematurely closed as per the instructions enshrined in the POSB(CBS) Manual Volume Rule no:81 (5) duly verifying the signature and other parameters procedurally.
3. As per instructions stipulated in the POSB (CBS) Manual volume Rule no:76 I had passed the half value withdrawal for the RD Account numbers : ………………………. duly comparing the signature. Mail overseer had verified the BO Journal on ………...2016 and Inspector of Post offices had inspected and duly signed the BO Journal on ……….2016. This may be kindly taken note of sir.
4. In respect of SB Account no:…………. withdrawal was allowed by the BPM ,Alambadi BO for Rs 5000 in the date ……..2016 & ……...2016 subsequently with in his Branch office withdrawal limit. In the show cause notice under the nature of lapses column it has been mentioned that failed to make special error entry. SB account no: ……… was opened on ………2015 and the annual interest due date is 31.03.2016 then where comes the necessity of mentioning the Said account number in the Special error book entry in the January month itself. .The mentioned procedural lapse is not in consonance with the rules.
5. I had checked the signature of BPM and Date stamp of BO daily accounts. As per the tenor of rules daily account should be signed by the BPM and the same has been found correct for all the days.

This indicates that the procedural lapses are void and defective. The lapses framed are not in consonance with the rule quoted and hence on this ground the lapses shall be set aside. The procedural lapses are in ostensive in nature and not in consonance of violation of any specific rules . The charges are vague and in presumptive in nature only with the intention to make me as a scapegoat in this case. I submit that the charges leveled should be based on violation of specific rules and thus it should be treated as vague and non sustainable as per the rules and also law of the land.

As per DG P&T No. 114/176/78 – Disc II dated 13.02.1981, it is emphasized that the disciplinary authority merely established certain lapses on the part of the government servant without explaining the facts leading to the loss and the manner in which the lapses on the part of the government servant had a link with the loss sustained to the department is not lawful. Violation of rules is a must and charges cannot be framed on presumption and assumption. Therefore it is absolutely necessary to mention the rules constituting the misconduct as the sole purpose of the charge is to make the charged official in clear terms what is the allegation against him and how it led the charges etc.

Therefore, it humbly requested the benign and renowned SSPOs that the procedural lapses leveled against me may kindly be dropped and favorable orders may please be issued.

 

Courtesy : /yourskayveeyes.blogspot.com