SETTLEMENT OF MINUS BALANCES IN SB ACCOUNTS - DRAFT REPLY

Dear Comrades,

It has been frequently noticed that most of the Divisional heads are issuing recovery orders arbitrarily for settlement of S B minus balances from the P As without observing usual formalities. Expressing concern over the issue, our CHQ has prepared a draft reply to be submitted by such officials to their respective SPOs/SSPOs which is reproduced below.

From                                                                                                      .07.2013

To

The Sr. Superintendent of  Pos.,

Sir, 

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,

Yours faithfully,