To,
The Director
General of Postal Services,
Postal
Directorate,
Dak Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
No. CHQ/POA/14/2021-23 Dated : 02.12.2021
Sub : Regarding safeguards for Inspecting Officers against alleged subsidiary offence in a fraud case.
Respected Sir,
Most humbly I would like to draw your kind attention towards making the inspecting officers as subsidiary offender in different loss & fraud cases in the recent past. At present, it is the situation that if any loss or fraud case comes to light in any division or sub-division, then the focus of the whole investigation is only and only what may be lapses in the part of the inspecting officer and all the inspecting officers are living only in this atmosphere of fear that when and in which case they will be made a subsidiary offender. It is well known fact that inspection is a tool of improvement for the organization. For better improvement, questionnaire are prepared and supplied to inspecting authority for references/ guidelines.
2. It is to submitted that after the implementation of CBS and CSI, many frauds have taken place across the country in the last few years and in all those cases the concerned Inspecting Officers have definitely been punished by making them a subsidiary offender. This practice is creating panic amongst all the Inspecting Officers and this need to be looked into in the interest of the department as this situation only gives them stress and de-motivation and it is meaningless to expect a very good result from a team living in stress and de-motivation. We need not to panic our workforce but to strengthen them so that we can get better outputs.
3. Association wants to highlight that most of the chargesheets are being issued to supervisory officer just on the ground of non compliance of questionnaire in toto. Whereas questionnaire is self variable in every month or two month by issuing amendments/corrigendum. It also mention that inspecting authorities may use their mind during inspection for improvement of the organization. But, it is not being applied due to fear that they may be chargesheeted for non-compliance of questionnaire. Even officers are hesitating to make inspection due to this phenomenon. It is not correct for the sake of development of department. Better service environment could not be created with this mindset. Therefore, association urges that subsidiary offenders should be identified based on the specific lapses/ non compliance of specific rules/ instructions not on the whims of that ‘ if you have do these things, it may not be happened’.
4.
Association wants to
welcome whole heartedly that actual problems of the field officer have been realized about recovery of losses caused due to frauds
and
accordingly, Demi Official letter No.Inv-17/18/2021-Inv-Dop dated
29.11.2021 has been issued
by your good-self.
5.
Further,
regarding making Inspecting Officers as subsidiary offender in a fraud case, I would like to place the following few points also in your kind honour for objective assessment of facts and
circumstances facing by the Inspecting Officers :
i. Divisional heads are not only working as inspecting authority. They have role of HR management of the division, cash management at Post Offices, estate management, Publicity of products at ground level, procuring business, making liaison with intermediary organization at district level, material management at division level, handling grievance of all stock holders, doing protocol duty, etc. They are sole responsible for proper functioning of the division.
ii. There is inherent requirement of clerical assistance to sub divisional heads to cope up with the increasing burden, but till date no clerical assistance has been provided to them.
iii. After launching of IPPB, work of inspection and verification of transactions of IPPB at all the access points have been included in the Inspection Questionnaire, but reporting pattern of the IPPB is very poor. It is also well known fact that special audit/inspection system is there in banking system. There is special team for this work. But, here is only solution i.e. divisional/sub divisional heads.
iv. After issuing revised inspection questionnaire of HO/SO/BO, several amendments have been made therein, but it is also a fact that no tool has been developed till date to carry out the inspection easily and it has been completely imposed on the inspecting authorities to do the inspection in any way.
v. It is fact that division has been created based on the norms which is created long back based on Maratha Time Test. No further time test has been prepared/defined whereas whole process, works, priorities, etc. have been completely changed in the department.
6. Therefore, this Association urged in your kind honour that inspection should not be a ground of subsidiary offence and the practice of making inspecting officers as subsidiary offender need to be stopped keeping in view of facts and circumstances narrated above. Inspecting officers may kindly be encouraged by safeguarding them against demoralizing by the punishment/ identifying as subsidiary offender without any proper justification.
7. We strongly hope under your dynamic leadership our department will have lots of improvements in the coming days and we assure to extend our dedicated service to fulfill your noble vision of moulding our department as a forward looking organization.
With regards,
Your Sincerely,
(Rajiv Kumar)
General Secretary
Copy
to :
The
CVO & Sr. DDG(Vigilance),
Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001
(Rajiv Kumar)
General Secretary
Note : General Secretary Shri Rajiv Kumar, Assistant General Secretary Shri Permanand Kumar, Assistant Finance Secretary Shri SVLN Rao met personally with Director General Postal Services and requested not to identify any inspecting officers as subsidiary offender until and unless they are directly involved in the omission/ commission of fraud.
