The Sr. Superintendent of Pos.,
Sub: Settlement of minus balances in SB Accounts at ......... – Reg.
Ref: SSPOs., Letter No……………..…………………….. dated …………………..
With reference to the letter cited , it has been mentioned that , there is negligence on my part, on the noted SB accounts which resulted in minus balance on the said accounts. Based on that, a recovery of Rs……………. is proposed to be made from my pay and allowances.
In this connection , I am to submit the following for your kind consideration and for issue of favourable orders.
1. Rule 18 of PO SB General Rules, 1981 empower the Postal Department to recover any excess paid amount paid to the depositor as arrears of Land Revenue from the depositors. Hence I request to initiate action as per the Rule ibid for settlement of the Minus Balance.
2. Further, I was not given any of the copy of documents, by which , establishing that I was actually responsible for the minus balance, since the noted dates of transactions were between the year …………… to …………….. For eg. copy of nominal role, user code maintenance record containing authorization on the software, print out copy of my pass word usage on the said transactions, copy of LOTs concerned , SO SB OM Register, SBCO OM register , SB 46 registers etc. Though, instructed in the ref., I was not allowed to pursue with the connected vouchers/supplied with copies of records etc. This is totally a denial of natural justice.
3. As per Rule 48 (ii) of PO SB Manual Volume I, the Ledger Assistant at HO should post the entries in the ledgers concerned and any discrepancy noticed should be booked into. This was not done in this case and the part of S.O. SB is completely hided , with a motive to favour on selected interests.
4. As per Rule 92 (2) (i) , (ii) , (iii), (v) and Rule 92(3) of PO SB Manual Volume I, Objection registers should be maintained with recordings of difference in balances at SO SB and SBCO and extract should be sent to S.O.s to rectify then and there. Monthly statement of the pending objections should be sent to the AO ICO (SB) and Senior Superintendent to take further action. These were not done in this case and if so the relevant records should be given access to the charged official to prove his innocence.
5. Since there are agreements made by the SBCO years-to-gether, and list of balances verified through the authorities concerned, for any reported left over/excess/short entries in manual ledgers/computers of …….. years back, the official working at S.O. level should not be selectively cornered.
6. As per Standard Inspection Questionnaire prescribed by the Department , vide para 27 (ii) and 32(c) checks should be made by the Inspecting authorities for verification of balances through issuance of SB 46 notices to the depositors concerned, and verification of SO balances concerned with HOs and nothing seems to be done in this case for the past …………….. years and failure, if any, is now rushed to be fixed only on the part of SO level, leaving the Inspecting authorities/Mail Overseers in a biased manner.
7. No sub- ordinate officers/ inspecting authorities/SO SB/SBCO officials, are issued with notices for recovery of pay, on whose part there are many such lapses in such of those cases, and I should not be singled out for any recovery in this case.
8. As per Rule 106 of P&T Man. Vol. III , any recovery can be imposed only when it is established, and in this case it was not done.
9. As per Rule 107 of P&T Man.Vol. III , the Disc. Authority should correctly assess in a realistic manner the contributory negligence, and while determining any omission or lapses on the loss considered and the extenuating circumstances in which the duties were performed by the official, shall be given due weight, but nothing has been done in this case.
In view of above, it is requested that I may be allowed to go through the records pertaining to the periods covered/ supplied with the copies of records as said above, under which such minus balances occurred. Thereafter, I shall give my final reply in this connection.
Thanking you Sir,