-
4 -
Points
i.e. CSCs/TCs so as to minimize cutting into the validity time of the cards. SDE
(IN) shall maintain the log book for printing of VCC cards with clear entries
of PSN numbers cancelled for the reasons of bad printing etc. He shall also open individual file for each
CSC / TC for VCC cards, he shall also maintain VCC Cards Stock Register and a
Cards Issue Register to keep proper accounting of cards which shall be produced
before A.M.(E)/G.M.(E) for perusal and auditing on their visit to IN, he will
send a weekly statement on the cards issued to various centres to AO (Receipts)
with copies to SDEs, CSCs/ TCs and PC ULS (INTL). Thus he communicates weekly at horizontal
level with his colleagues namely SDEs, incharge of sale (distribution) and the AO
(Receipts), incharge of accounting. At
vertical level, he reports monthly to A.M.(E)/G.M.(E).
5. We found that at the relevant point of
time, one Shri Honne Gowda was the SDE (IN) and it has come out that the
concerned officer had failed in all the five aspects reported above for which
apparently disciplinary action was taken against him and censure alone was
imposed upon him in spite of the fact that although there are figures available
as to the number of cards printed, there are no figures available as to the
invalid cards or cards returned as unsold.
There was no weekly reporting with copies to SDEs incharge of sale and
there was no reconciliation of account with
-
5 -
Accounts
Officer (Receipts) i.e. Mr. Haroon Rasheed, who had also admitted that no
reconciliation was ever made.
We felt it
necessary to inquire from the officers of the department as to how these
guidelines were actually put in practice and we noticed the following lapses:-
(i)
From the circular, it is seen that the Cards are printed, sold and accounted
for in a triangular system. The SDE –CSC (Customer Service Centre) decides how
many cards are needed for sale during the fortnight and indent the same to the SDE
I-Net which is a supplying office (a different office). When the cards are sold
the cash obtained from the customer, is collected on daily basis by yet another
officer namely the Accounts Officer (AO) (Receipts). Their three respective senior officers were
supposed to periodically receive reports for monitoring and were also expected
to inspect these offices for physical verification. All these arrangements remained only on
papers and nothing came into practice.
As a result, the misappropriation to the tune of Rs.17,09,855/- only has
been detected after nearly three years, that too only by the inspection of
Audit wing of the department in 2002. We
find that the SDE (IN) was not reading the indent slips issued by the
STOA-P. We have perused as many as 49
indent slips and found that in each slip the concerned STOA-P was showing the
figures of indented cards and unsold cards, but in the next consecutive slip
the closing balance of previous indent did not appear as
-
6 -
opening
balance instead the number of indented cards itself was entered as opening
balance also. A person of normal
diligence would have been able to see one indent slip and realize that the
opening balance is not shown properly, but the SDE (IN) had not cared to
notice.
(ii) The indenting officer was allowed to print
cards at his will and supply it to various CSCs as per their indent and
apparently the department had no system to reconcile and monitor how many cards
are being printed by the SDE (IN) on a daily or monthly or yearly basis how
many are accounted for as distributed etc.
No senior officer seemed concerned about it.
(iii) The circular states that a day to day
detailed report in the prescribed format for the sale of VCC Cards shall be
prepared and submitted while depositing the cash with the AO (Receipts). This was apparently not done for three years.
(iv) There was also no system of tallying what
the SDE (IN) prints and issues and what is sold out by the entire division and
the money received by the AO (Receipts).
And what happens to the unsold
cards of various denominations.
(v) Complete failure of supervisory machinery -
When a circular prescribes a monthly report it is as much the duty of the
supervisory officer to see that his juniors are sending the said report. No
DE
(vi) The department did not have the system of a
monthly or quarterly meeting of the DE with all his SDEs. Such a system of monthly meeting is extremely
useful for proper coordination, human resource augmentation and preventing all
possible omissions and mis- appropriations arising out of inadequate
supervision either by SDE or by the DE or by the DGM.
In
this instant case, we found from the records that while the applicant SDE who
is also the head of office seems to be kept in complete darkness by the STOA-P
Shri Natarajan, who never presented any indent slip or any daily tally sheet
for her perusal and signature, even the supplying office and the office of the
AO (Receipts) have never questioned the authority of STOA-P to sign the
slips. Further the pilferage or mistake
they could have detected by just one look at the indent slips has not been detected
by them. In fact, the AO has apparently
never received or demanded the tally slips from any of the SDEs from whom he
was collecting the cash. All nice rules
were there on paper. The D.E. ULS
(Intl-I) has to periodically check the cards in stock at IN, scrutinize all
registers and also inspect files for all CSC/TC. He will have to send a monthly statement of
VCC cards to Chief Accounts Officer with a copy to AM (East), the S.D.E. In
charge of the CSC should maintain a daily sale register and send a weekly
statement to A.O (Receipts) and monthly statement to CAO with a definite
proforma. The applicant herein was the
SDE of the concerned CSC and, therefore, apparently, if there is any shortage,
she has the primary responsibility. The
D.E. (O/D)/C.S. will at least once in a month make physical verification and
reconcile the account. The A.O.
(Receipts will receive daily collections and weekly statements and tally them
with the reconciled statement issued by SDE (IN) and SDE (CSC)/TC and he will bring
into notice of A.M. (E)/C.A.O.(NS), the discrepancies. He is also obliged to send monthly statement
to C.A.O. (NS)/A.M.(E). The C.A.O.(NS)
will be responsible for overall monitoring of collections and assessments. The AM (East) will inspect the S.D.E.(IN)
once in a month. Therefore, a proper
procedure is seen made out and on paper, everything appears to be correct and
proper but, after we called for the VCC cards indents and inspected the same,
we came to realize the shoddy system that was in operation and to cover up a
discrepancy and lacuna of the system, an officer is being made a scapegoat and
victimized. Thereupon, we summoned the
concerned officers and enquired of the situation prevailing but, since we have
not given an opportunity to any of the parties to participate in the inquisition,the
proceedings of the inquisition shall only be used as a clarificatory strategy.
6. It would appear that on 18.8.1999 the
earlier incumbent made over the charge of SDE to the applicant. We have already seen that VCC cards have come
into operation from 12.7.1999 and on 26.7.1999 the procedure for issuance of
cards were finalized vide No.AME/CSC/99-2000 dated 26.7.1999. But, we have seen from the indent produced
dated 23.7.1999 that Shri Vaikunta Raju, the predecessor of the applicant, who
was then holding the responsibility of City Exchange CSC, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore and seems to have
issued indent Card No.2 on that date.
Apparently, he had authorized V. Natarajan, the applicant in O.A. No.40
of 2009 to see the actual counter clerk dealing with the cards in office of SDE
(IN) and collect them by signing. But,
thereafter, continuously the said V. Natarajan had signed as SDE In Charge of
CSC, he seems to have made a seal of ‘Officer In Charge, CSC City
7. It would appear that on 11.4.2000, the
charge of the office was handed over to Shri G. Madhavamurthy and even under
Shri G. Madhavamurthy, Shri Natarajan continued as Officer In Charge. The respondents have a case that even though
the applicant was transferred out from the post, she was orally by her superior
i.e. the D.E., asked to continue looking after the CSC also. No document is available for such additional
responsibility being handed over to the applicant. The applicant denying this additional
responsibility to her, it can be presumed that it is created only as a link
between the genesis of the events and its culmination. We had examined all the indents but could not
find the applicant’s signatures in any.
Even some of the indents do not carry the seal, it was all handwritten
by Shri Natarajan who posed as the Officer In Charge and Shri Honne Gowda
accepted it. To compound it also, Shri Haroon Rasheed, the A.O. (Receipts) who
was also in the meeting for formulation of matrix to be followed, would submit
in the inquisition that there was no daily statement, no weekly statement and
no monthly statement either to him from SDE (CSC) or from him to the CAO (NS)
and AM (E) and for more than 3 years no one bothered to look into the situation
of the CSC. No physical verification was
done by the concerned officers senior namely the DE and the DGM, even though
they were enjoined to do so. From the
factual responses made available to us from the concerned officers and the answers
given by both applicants i.e. in O.A. No.40 of 2009 and the present case, we
had reason to suspect that one organized group may be working and the superior
officers were unable to check and controvert them. Therefore, we can only conclude that unfortunate
events have taken place in B.S.N.L.
8. This is more pertinent in the light of
three other SDE (CSC) who were reporting in accordance with the laid down
procedure. Therefore, there is a
clear-cut failure on the part of the superior officers, the DE and DGM when
viewed in the light of one CSC (Customer Service Centre) being negligent in the
nth degree and not offer any reconciliation, for three years together when
others in the same city had scrupulously followed the correct procedure. Seniors failed to notice that no weekly or
monthly statement was coming forth from one of the CSCs where they were
supervisory officers. They never
enquired why. If the senior officers had
acted within their powers and in compliance with their jurisdiction, such a theft
would not have occurred and Shri Natarajan would not have the opportunity to
style himself as Officer In Charge and issue indents and Shri Honne Gowda would
not have a chance to honour such obviously frivolous indents. In this context, a question may be rightly
asked on the actual number of cards issued and printed. Going by the same methodology and the
psychology of the persons involved to the facts of the case, it is easy for
them to print ten times more number of cards indented for and sell every one of
them but show only the indented cards as actual sale. This strong possibility cannot be easily
discounted, but this only a possibility.
But, the fact remains that with such frivolous indents and forged sale,
a person was able to style himself as Officer In Charge and there is now a
shortage of more than Rs.17 lakhs. He
has claimed that these shortages were the result of invalidation of cards. If the
No comments:
Post a Comment