ITEMS PLACED FOR THE PERIODICAL MEETING AT DIRECTORATE:
AIPSBCOEA/CHQ/Items for periodical meeting/2021 Dated: 29.10.2021
To
The Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan Sansad Marg,
New Delhi- 110 001.
Respected Sir,
Subject: Items for the periodical meeting of Service Associations in Department of Posts…
Reference: Directorate OM No. F. No.02-01/2021/SR dated 25.10.2021.
On behalf of the All India Postal SBCO Employees Association, the following items are placed for discussion in the periodical meeting of Service Associations in Department of Posts:-
1. Cadre Restructuring of SBCO:
It is learnt that almost all the works related to Cadre restructuring of SBCO is completed and the recommendations/reports have been submitted by the committee. The Honorable Secretary Post may kindly look into the matter personally to issue the orders for Cadre restructuring at the earliest Please.Many letters have already been written regarding Cadre restructuring of SBCO, Nomenclaturechange, Change of control of SBCO to GM PA & F etc. vide letter numbers dated 28.8.2019,25.11.2019,02.12.2019,18.5.2020,09.7.2020,13.7.2020,30.9.2020,29.1.2021,18.6.2021, 30.8.2021 etc.A Committee was constituted for Cadre review/restructuring of Gr ‘C’ /Gr ‘B’(Non-Gaz) of PAOs vidememo dated 05.03.2020 under the chairmanship of Sr. DDG (PAF). As our Association is alreadydemanding for bringing the SBCO staff under the Director of Postal Accounts (PAO); the Cadrerestructuring may be done for SBCO by bringing SBCO under the Control of GM PA & F as both thewings are performing the same kind of work and also bifurcated from the same AG P&T . Moreover, SBCO is discharging its duties w.r.t all the SBCategories as per procedures on behalf of GM PA & F only at H.O level. So, the change of Control ofSBCO to GM PA & F is inevitable and SBCO staff may be centralized at regional levels for effectivefunctioning of the Cadre and also to avoid the undue hardships faced by the SBCO officials during everytenure of their transfers and to work with full dedication and mental peace.
Hence, it is requested that Cadre Restructuring may please be done immediately without any further delay as already its more than one year since the proposal has been taken up. This is the only hope for SBCO Cadre to get their promotions without declining and to pave way for a bright future of SBCO wing and its employees.
2. Filling up of vacancies in SBCO:
Acute staff shortage in SBCO Cadre throughout the country:
As mentioned in all the previous letters sent from the AIPSBCOEA CHQ, Letter No.AIPSBCOEA/CHQ/Filling up of vacancies at SBCO/2021 dated: 24.3.2021, SBCO is facing acute staff shortage throughout the country in all the circles. Except very few City units almost all SBCO units are functioning with 1/3rd sanctioned strength and even single handed in many units. Moreover there are no regular Supervisors posted in 80% of SBCO units, in many units a single official is compelled to perform the duties of both Supervisor and PA. Many of the senior officials have retired from service whose vacancies are lying unfilled. In this staff shortage scenario performing 100% checking in addition to the newly added works of NSC & KVP, and the additional works as per the SB Order 4/2021 is practically not possible. This will only lead to pendency of works at SBCO. If Administration wants SBCO to perform all the works effectively as mentioned in the SB Order 4/2021 dated 08.03.2021, the staff strength position should be completely concentrated and filled up to the sanctioned strength and even review the establishment according to the additional works added to increase the sanctioned strength of all the SBCO units. A special drive may be conducted by the department to fill up all the vacancies as an one time measure in SBCO giving top priority.
The LSG/HSG II/ HSG I posts are very limited in SBCO and are lying vacant for years together.One time relaxation in RRs of HSG II & HSG I Posts may be given to fill up all the Supervisory posts lying vacant at SBCO by relaxing the Recruitment Rules, for which letter has already been written by AIPSBCOEA dated 20.1.2020 & 18.5.2020.
Suggestions of AIPSBCOEA CHQ to fill up all vacant posts in SBCO:
(i) This Association suggests to conduct a Special Drive of Recruitment to fill up all the vacant posts in SBCO Cadre as Department is concentrating more on SBCO by redefining new roles to SBCO PAs and Supervisors vide the SB Orders issued recently. Additional works have been allotted to SBCO Cadre as mentioned above and hence the staff shortage has to be made good for Spot free performance as per the expectation of the Department.
(ii) Providing PA assistance to all the SBCO units up to the sanctioned strength as per the SB Order 14/2015.
(iii) Posting 40% of officials to SBCO Cadre who are recruited now vide promotions from Postman to PA to fill up the vacancies in SBCO Cadre throughout the country in each and every H.O.
(iv) Cadre Restructuring of SBCO may be done immediately to increase the number of Supervisory Posts (LSG, HSG II & HSG I) enabling the youngsters to get their promotions quickly without declining the same.
Hence it is again requested that all the vacancies of SBCO may kindly be filled up to the sanctioned strength by kindly implementing the above mentioned suggestions at a war footing measure to enable SBCO officials to work as per the expectation of the Department, SB Orders and Control Procedure without any practical difficulties.
A line of reply is solicited.
With Regards,
-Sd-
SHP.JASMINE JALAL BEGAM
(General Secretary)
LETTER TO SECRETARY POST TO STOP IRREGULAR RECOVERY ON SBCO STAFF IN THE NAME OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE:-
Ref.AIPSBCOEA/CHQ/To Stop irregular recovery on SBCO staff/2021 Dt: 27.09.2021
To
The Secrectary,
Department of Post,
DakBhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 001.
Subject:-Request to stop irregular recovery imposed on SBCO staff in the name of
contributory negligence for petty irregularities …
Reference:-Rule 11(iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Respected Sir,
On behalf of AIPSBCOEA, it is painfully brought to the kind notice of the Honorable Secretary Post about the irregular recovery of many Lakhs of Rupees imposed on the SBCO staff in the name of Contributory negligence for petty irregularities which is recently becoming a burning issue in SBCO cadre as if it is a punishment for serving in the Department of Post after being very much qualified with so many professional/master degrees and dreams about their future career ; for the intentional misappropriation of some other delinquent officials who cause the pecuniary loss to the Government.
Contributory Negligence /Irregular recovery imposed on SBCO staff:-
Duties of SBCO staff are well defined in Manual for SB Control, Pairing and ICO Procedures. Accordingly the SBCO staff are exercising the decentralized Audit and Accounts duties and their work actually start after accounting of the transactions. Therefore penalizing the SBCO employees by imposing the recovery of loss irrationally for frauds committed in the Saving Schemes in sub-offices and branch offices is contrary to the statutory rules. The SBCO staff are not related to any type of monetary transactions and accordingly they should not be identifiedas sub-offender/co-offender in misappropriation cases. It is clearly laid down that under Rule 11 (iii) CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, the penalty of recovery can be imposed on a Government servant only when it is established that a Govt. Servant is directly responsible for the act of negligence and breach of orders causing the financial loss and accordingly the SBCO staff should not be held responsible for any type of recovery in misappropriation cases as they did not contribute either directly or indirectly to the fraudand SBCO staff may be exempted from contributory negligence as they are not involved directly in monetary transactions.
Rule 11 of CCS CCA Rules 1965 (D.G.P&T order No.114/176/78-Disc. II dated 13.02.1981)
(23) Imposition of the penalty of recovery: (a):
In the case of proceedings relating to recovery of pecuniary losses caused to the Government by negligence of breach of orders by a Government servant, the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when it is established that the Government servant was responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and that such negligence or breach caused the loss.
In the case of loss caused to the Government, the competent disciplinary authority should correctly asses in a realistic manner the contributory negligence on the part of an office, 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.
The amount of recovery of loss ordered as a measure of penalty can be reduced by the punishing authority at any later stage if it is found that the amount of loss sustained by the Government is less than that originally calculated. If, however, the loss is subsequently found to be nil, 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.
(b): Manner in which charge-sheet to be framed:-
As is well known the penalty of recovery from pay is a special type of penalty which cannot be awarded in all types of misconduct. Rule 11 (3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, clearly prescribes that the penalty of recovery from pay of the whole or part of the loss caused by the Government servant to the Government by negligence or breach of orders on his part can be awarded only in a case where it has been established that the negligence or breach of orders on the part of a Government servant has led to the loss to the department. Instructions were also issued in the past bringing the special provision of the rule to the notice of all concerned, but it has been observed that the requirement of the rule could not be properly appreciated by most of the disciplinary authorities. In a recent Court case, an order of penalty of recovery has been set aside on the ground 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 by the department. No appeal has been filed in this case as it was found that it would not be possible to sustain the order of the penalty of recovery which was not consistent with the rule referred to above. A number of frauds or misappropriations are committed and it is not always possible to recover the entire amount of loss from the real culprit. In some cases, it is not even possible to locate the real culprit and accordingly it becomes impossible to take action against the subsidiary offenders with the primary object of recovering loss sustained by the department. It should be clearly understood by all the disciplinary authorities that while an official can be punished for good and sufficient reasons, the penalty of recovery can be awarded only if the lapses on his part have either led to the commission of the fraud or misappropriation or frustrated the enquiries as a result of which it has not been possible to locate the real culprit. It is, therefore, obligatory that the charge-sheet should be quite elaborate and should not only indicate clearly the nature of lapses on the part of the particular official but also indicate the modus operandi of the frauds and their particulars and how it can be alleged that but for the lapses on the part of the official, the fraud or misappropriation could be avoided or that successful enquiries could be made to locate the stage at which the particular fraud had been committed by a particular person.This will enable the accused not only to submit a defence against the allegation brought against him but also to explain how the lapses had not contributed to the loss in any manner. The disciplinary authority is also required to give a clear finding in the punishment order on both these points. If it is not done, the order, awarding the penalty of recovery will be liable to be set aside. The Heads of Circles and Administrative Offices, etc., are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all concerned so that the disciplinary proceedings for a penalty of recovery may not suffer from a procedural flaw.
Rules, 1965 – Recovery of pecuniary loss caused by a Government servant – Clarifications –
References are being received in this Department seeking clarification whether the instructions contained in DGP&T Letter No. 3/312/70-Disc-I dated 17.08.1971 are applicable to Government servants serving in other Ministries/Departments also.
2. The DGP&T’s instructions mentioned above provide that recovery from the pay of a Government servant as a punishment for any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders, should not exceed 1/3 of his basic pay (i.e. excluding dearness pay or any other allowances) and should not be spread over a period of more than three years. However, no such limits have been prescribed in the statutory rules i.e. in Rule 11 (iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
3. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law. It was observed that the DGP&T instructions prescribed the procedure to effect the recovery of the amount levied as penalty in terms of Rule 11 (iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and these procedural instructions cannot amend, supercede, or modify the substantive provisions of Rule 11 (iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. While it is expected that in imposing the penalty of recovery of pecuniary loss the disciplinary authority should not display such severity that a Government servant suffers hardship disproportionate to his negligence/misconduct that led to the loss, it is not necessary to fix a rigid limit for the purpose of such recovery. The DGP&T instructions would, therefore, be treated as unwarranted. Therefore, the implication of this OM is to recover the entire loss from the delinquent official but the recovery may be spread over till entire loss is discovered.
The entire loss caused to the Government is to be recovered from the Delinquent official only. The meaning of “Delinquent” is one who is proved to be the “accused” or the “criminal” who has committed the theft himself to cause the misappropriation. So, the recovery of amount should be levied on him, if he doesn’t have liquid cash then his properties can be seized/attached by court to bear the loss. Anyhow, he will be possessing the fraudulent amount in his name/family members/in the form of assets. So, amount should be recovered only from the delinquent official through any one source as mentioned above and very serious cases to be filed against him to put behind the bars.
But usually, the Administration is recovering the amount misappropriated from the other innocent officials who come into the scene only after the delinquent official has defrauded the amount intentionally by himself. The relevant vouchers/consolidations are sent to the Accounting office only on the next day of the transaction where it is handed over to the SBCO branch. The officials of SBCO have not seen the depositor, or collected money from him, or tallied the cash across the counter for the particular day of transaction on which the fraud happened. Only with the available documents received, voucher checking is done for the H.O and all the S.Os under it by hardly 2-3 SBCO officials on the next day. Now, each and every transaction has to be checked through the vouchers received at SBCO 100% for all the offices including H.O and the S.Os under it for that particular date. Practically speaking, almost all the SBCO units throughout the country are filled up by 1/3rd of the total sanctioned strength only. Also, even if the SBCO officials have checked the relevant vouchers for all the criteria as per the SB orders and procedures, the occurrence of fraud cannot be prevented as already the fraud had taken place on the previous day itself. Moreover the fraudulent person usually do not commit any omission in the vouchers mishandled by him to do the fraud. In this situation it is very shocking that how the administration wants to put the innocent SBCO officials into trap for recovering the amount which was defrauded by a criminal intentionally, without recovering the amount directly from the accused who has done the misappropriation.
This is nothing but, indirectly supporting the criminal who has misappropriated the amount and caused the pecuniary loss to the Government. This is a way of encouraging frauds and patronizing the criminals who misappropriate amounts in crores in this technical/technological scenario. So, a mentality has developed among such black sheep who have a crooked mind of indulging in frauds that the amount he will swindle will be collected from some other innocent officials and not from him fully. So, the amount he has not repaid to the Department will be a profit for such a person. Automatically, in this business minded world, such criminals will continue to do the frauds unless and until very strict methods are not adopted to collect the full amount from the concerned person who has misappropriated the amount intentionally and very serious cases to be filed against him to put him behind the bars.
As mentioned above the innocent SBCO employees who is in no way connected in the frauds are made scape goats for only working for the Department and Auditing the POSB transactions sincerely amidst the technical issues, staff shortage and all the draw backs of the software which is not in a way that each and every fraud can be detected by them. Every possibility/loop hole is there for a fraudulent person to commit frauds in the CBS/GL integrated scenario whatever it is. It is relevant to mention some observations from the legal forums in connection with imposition of penalty of recovery of loss by way of contributory negligence.
JUDGEMENTS:-
1. (A) Post Office Savings bank manual Volume-I- Rule 9(1), 31(2)(iii), 48(ii), 92(2) and 120(6)-
Recovery-Charge of failure to detect the ongoing fraud atthe relevant time by other staff members which resulted in pecuniary loss to Govt. - None of the applicants was charged with misappropriating any amount nor it was alleged that their integrity was doubtful-Evenno detailed enquiry was held-Order of recovery of loss along with interest quashed.
(B) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 11(3)—Recovery-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.(Smt. KalpanaShinde 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).
2. For negligence, department proceedings can be initiated but recovery of money would not
be legal.
CAT,Jabalpur Bench (Circuit at Gwalior) -ATJ 2005(1)-45)
3. The reasoning of the Disciplinary Authority proceeds on the ground that if the applicant had carried out these duties, no fraud would have been committed but this is a mere surmise, as even after carrying out these duties the SPM being in possession of cash was in a position to misappropriate the amount. Further more such negligence even if there is one, cannot be a cause for punishing the applicant with the recovery of loss sustained by the department. The applicant obviously was not directly responsible for the misappropriation of this amount ought to have been made from the person directly responsible for the misappropriation merely because the department found that it was not possible to recover the amount from the main culprit some other scapegoat cannot be found out and cannot be levied with the punishment of recovery of the loss.
(S.K.Chaudhury v U.O.I & ors in OA No. 504 of 1996 – CAT, Ahmedabad Bench).
Hence, on behalf of AIPSBCOEA, it is requested that the SBCO officials should be exempted from the contributory negligence. The amount misappropriated to be recovered only from the “delinquent” official i.e. the Criminal/accused and not from the innocent SBCO officials. Rule 11 (3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, clearly prescribes that the penalty of recovery from pay of the whole or part of the loss caused by the Government servant to the Government by negligence or breach of orders on his part can be awarded only in a case where it has been established that the negligence or breach of orders on the part of a Government servant has led to the loss to the department. The CCS Conduct Rules 1964 hold good for punishing the Government servants for their act of misconduct and CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 for imposing penalties for their carelessness including Contributory negligence by way of recovery. But the SBCO officials are punished under both by framing charges for lapses which is in no way the cause for the pecuniary loss caused. So, the innocent SBCO officials whocome to scene only after the transaction across the counter on the next day are in no way be the cause for the loss to the department and cannot be charged with recovery under Contributory negligence. Summarizing the rules and facts and judgements, it is submitted that the delinquent official who involves in the fraud directly across the counter only to be punished with the recovery of amount misappropriated and not the innocent SBCO officials whose role is to check the transactions with the documents received on the next day.
In the light of the above facts, the respected Secretary Post may kindly interfere and issue clear instructions to all Disciplinary Authorities to adhere to rules strictly and not to impose recovery under contributory negligence on the innocent SBCO officials who are not involved in the monetary transactions directly and to recover the whole amount of misappropriation from the delinquent official (culprit) who committed the fraud by himself and to file case against the culprit for putting him behind the bars. This act will surely decrease the frauds and will act as a deterrent to those delinquent officials (culprits) who intend to do frauds and will constitute a threat/warning to them.
A line of reply is solicited Please.
With Regards,
-Sd-
SHP. JASMINE JALAL BEGAM
General Secretary
AIPSBCOEA.
Copy To:
1. The Member (P),
Department of Post,
DakBhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi -110 001.
2. The Director SR & Legal,
Department of Post,
DakBhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi -110 001.
-Sd-
SHP. JASMINE JALAL BEGAM
General Secretary
AIPSBCOEA.
AGITATION PROGRAMME AGAINST THE DOP OM DATED 15.9.2021
Comrades, It is a common fight! 23.09.2021
Stand with the Service Unions!
The Department of Posts and the DOPT are trying to extend the rules of Sports Associations to our Federations and Unions/Associations! Heavy restrictions are being imposed on the Government Servants to get elected to their unions/associations form the Divisional level to the Federation level. The restriction is non grant of Foreign Service too. The latest OM of DOP purportedly released with the concurrence of the DOPT through OM F. No. 18-01/2017-SR Dated 15.09.2021 is a clear attack on trade union rights. The OM is bringing new restrictions and attacks which were not at all contemplated by the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993. Let us Unitedly fight and Extend our full Support. Be a part of all the Programmes launched to defeat the anti-workers policy of the Department and the Government behind.
PROTEST ACTION:-
The National Federation of Postal Employees and all the affiliated Unions/Associations call upon at all level to register a strong protest action immediately as part of the series of trade union actions decided as follows:
1. Massive Protest Demonstrations – at all Divisions in front of the office of the Divisional Heads on 24th September 2021 demanding withdrawal of draconian orders issued by Department of Posts under No. 18-01/2017-SR dated 15th September 2021.
2. Post Card/Email Campaign – Post Cards and Emails should be sent to Cabinet Secretary, Secretary DOP & T and Secretary Department of Posts between 28th to 30th September 2021.
|
Letter Campaign Programme at the call of NFPE
Respected Sir, It is noted that several restrictions have been imposed on the composition and functioning of the service unions in our department through a draconian order having No.F.No.18-01/2017-SR dated 15th September 2021, following DOPT O.M. No. F. No.11013/1/2016-Estt. A-III dated 27th February 2020, which has paved way to undue and undemocratic interference of administration inside the organization. As such order is not conductive to maintain a healthy atmosphere in the department, it is requested to withdraw the order unconditionally.
|
With Revolutionary Greetings
-Sd-
SHP. JASMINE JALAL BEGAM
AIPSBCOEA.
