.jpeg)
ANOTHER REMEMRABLEJUDGEMENT GUARDING
RECOVERY IMPOSED UNDER CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TTRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH ,
JODHPUR
OA No. 156/2011
Order reserved
on 01.03.2012
Order pronounced on
: 22.05.2012
HON’BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
___________72, Balaji Nagar
Near Bijhli Ghar, Salawas Road,
Jodhpur
…………Applicant
Versus
Union of India through
The Secretary
Government of India,
Ministry of
Communication,
Department of Posts
Dak Tar Bhawan, New Delhi
Post Master general
Western Region, Jodhpur 362007
The Superintendent
of Post Offices
Jodhpur Division, jodhpur ……..Respondents
BY Advocate Shri Ankur Mathur for
Shri Vinit Mathur
O R D E R
1. The applicant of
this OA was appointed as a Postal Assistant of the year 1972 and superannuated
from his serviced30.6.2010. While he was working as Assistant Post Master under
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jodhpur, after unblemished service of 38
years. During the period of his service, he was for some time posted at the
treasury Accounts section in Jodhpur Head Post Office. The applicant has
pointed out that the respondents have through the impugned order dated
31.03.2011, Annexure A-1 passed the order for recovery of Rs 60,000/- from the retirement benefits, as
earlier ordered by the Senior
Superintendent Posts Office Jodhpur through his order dated 21.01.2010 Annexure A-2. And they have failed to
consider his representation dated 14.06.2010 in response to the notice served
upon him for imposition of major penalty under Rule 16 of CCS (CCS) Rules.
Annexure-A3dated 10-6-2010. Neither has his stated representation
dated 05.08-2010 against the orders dated 21.06.2010 (Annexure A-2) been
considered in detail while passing the impugned order of the Appellate
Authority, Director Postal Services, Jodhpur, through Annexure-A-1.
2. The applicant has
pointed out that is name has unnecessarily being included as a subsidiary of
offender in respect of the offense of misappropriation detected by the
department at Phalodi Sub-Post Office, far away from his place of posting, when
it has still not been revealed as to how the applicant here in is liable for
the alleged offences committed by the two name person posted at Phalodi, when neither
his name had been mentioned in the compliant/ FIR, nor any show cause notice
has been issued to him with respect to any inquire proposed to be started
against him. The applicant has alleged that the respondents did not even make
out a proper charge sheet against him
and respondents have imposed to recover the amount at the time of his
retirement by branding him to be a subsidiary offender in passing of certain
voucher, through Annexure A-3 dated 10.06.2010, just 20 days prior to the date
of his superannuation, without initiating a disciplinary enquiry and fixing
responsibilities upon him for that offence which had nothing to with the applicant,
and had occurred years back, and the action of the respondents in recovering
the amount to Rs 60,000/- from him is nothing but a glaring example of
arbitrariness, hostile and discriminatory action, as well as colorable exercise
of power.
3. The applicant has pointed out that the
principal offenders had committed this offence form the year 2005 to 2008,
which was detected in the year 2009, and the applicant could not have been held
to be in anyway responsible for even having facilitated the misappropriation,
since he joined at Jodhpur Head Office only on 08.05.2008. His contention is
that even though not even a single penny has been recovered from the Principal
offenders of the Phalodi Fraud case, knowing fully well that they would have to
issue a ‘No Objection Certificate’ at the time of his retirement on 30.06.2010,
they compelled the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs 60,000/- in case for
obtaining the NOC at the time of his retirement, in spite of knowing that no
such recovery can be made, except by virtue of an order passed under Rule 11
sub Rule (iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant has further given the
details as to how he could not have had a hand in assisting the Principal
offenders, and in making any mistakes in the ledger and balance etc, since all
accounts has now been computerized . The applicant alleged that the respondent
have not revealed as to how he has been held liable for an offence allegedly
committed by tow delinquents posted at Phalodi Sub Post Office, and as to how
he is linked with the alleged offence, and what contributory role he played,
and as to what was the reason why disciplinary proceeding were not been initiated
or even show cause notice was not issued to him by just 20 days prior to his superannuation. It
was further submitted that on the one hand respondents has passed the
punishment order of recovery of Rs 60,000/- from the applicant, while in the
same matter other delinquents are still facing criminal proceedings filed by
the CBI as well as departmental proceedings. He further submitted that there is
no statutory provision to authorize the respondents to assess any loss caused
by the Government servant without conducting a proper disciplinary enquiry,
beause it is not open to the respondents to be judge in their own case, and to
determine the recovery on
a Government servant without instituting relevant departmental enquiry
proceedings.
4. It was submitted by
the applicant that the impugned orders has been passed by the respondents
without application o mind and without the appreciation of the correct and
factual aspects of the matter, and even though the fraud was detected in the
year 2009, the respondents have, even as yet, not determined as to how he was
involved in this matter, and have not issued to him any charge sheet, or
commenced any enquiry, or eve issued a Show Cause Notice to him. It was
submitted that when neither any disciplinary proceedings are pending, nor
initiated, the respondents were wrong in having denied to him all the service
benefits in a whimsical manner and in colorable exercise of power, with hostile
and discriminatory action, in a glaring example of arbitrariness. The applicant
submitted that the responded have violated the principal of natural justice in
not having considered the facts and circumstances of the evidence placed by him
on records.
5. In the result , the
applicant had prayed for the impugned Annexure A-1dated 31-03-2011 passed by
the Appellate Authority and Annexure A-2 dated 21-06-2010 passed by the
Disciplinary Authority to be declared as illegal, unjust, improper, and to be
quashed and set aside , and for directions upon the respondents to refund the
recovered amount of Rs 60000/- with interest , and any other directions in the
interest of justice, apart from costs,
6. In their reply
written statement filed on 03.01.2012, the respondents submitted under Rule 16 that the Applicant
was rightly served with a charge denied
the submissions of the applicant. They took a stand that while working as the
Assistant Post Master, Jodhpur Head Post Office during the period from
12.05.2008 to 31.08.2010, the applicant
did not perform the prescribed checks on various SB Accounts standing at
Phalodi sub Post Office and because of his negligence, fraud to the tune of Rs
2 crores could be committed by the Principal Offenders. It was submitted that
the applicant was rightly served with a charge sheet under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA)
Rules, 1965, on 10.6.2010, and the
penalty of recovery of Rs 60000/- awarded vide Memo dated 21.06.2010 was
justified . It was submitted that on detection of the fraud at Phalodi Sub Post
Office, on04.06.2009 during the surprise
visit, apart from taking action against Principal Offenders then posted at
Phalodi Sub Post office , since each and every transaction at Phalodi Sub Post
Office was checked and verified at Jodhpur Head Post Office, the Subsidiary
offenders at Jodhpur HO had been identified, o n the basis of responsibilities
which they had failed to perform, and that the applicant alone was not awarded
the penalty of recovery, and that there are many other subsidiary offender also
identified in that fraud case who have been penalized with the penalty of
recovery in proportion to negligence. It was submitted that since more
than Rs 1.3 crore has yet to be recovered
out of the total misappropriation in the fraud case, which could take place
only because while working as a Supervisor the applicant failed to perform his
duties to check the details of any payments more than Rs 20000/-, which were
made in cash by the Subordinate Office. The
respondents had stated that the applicant cannot escape his
responsibility only because the CBI criminal case had been filed only against
the two Principal Offenders, who had committed the fraud, since the
responsibility of subsidiary offenders has also been determined and fixed by
the department, and more than 60 other subsidiary offenders had been
identified, depending upon their level of negligence, which had allowed the
fraud to take place.
7. The applicant filed a rejoinder more or less
reiterating his submissions in the OA. He
submitted that the recovery o60000/- had been made from him in violation
of Section 4 of the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850, provides that the person or persons at
the Head of the office to which any public accountant belongs may
proceed against any such public accountants and his securities, for any loss or
defalcation in his accounts as if the amount thereof were an arrear of land
revenue due to Government
. However , he submitted that for this purpose, it was necessary for the
competent authority to first arrive at
clear findings under Rule 204 of the P&T Manual Vol-III, that the
Government employee held responsible for a particular act or negligence or
breach of orders or rules, which had caused the loss. He has submitted that the
respondents did not prove his fault and have punished him on suspicion, and on
the basis of presumption, and the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of Kuldeep
Singh Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 10 that suspicion
or presumption cannot take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. He
had further given the detail about his responsibilities as an assistant
Postmaster, and had submitted that it was the responsibility of the Ledger
Assistant to have checked up the bundles of vouchers received from Phalodi Post
Office and to have maintained the objection register, as is apparent from Rules
4f8 to 92 of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Vol I (Annexure A-7 to A-8).
8. It was further
submitted by the applicant in his rejoinder that Rules 106 and 107 of the Post
Office Saving Bank Manual Vol-I are very clear in stating that in the case of
proceedings initiating of
recovery of pecuniary losses caused to the Government by negligence, or 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
particular act or fact of negligence, or breach of orders or rules, and that
such negligence of breach caused the loss. The Rule 107 further states that in
case of a loss caused to the Government , the competent disciplinary authority
has to correctly assess in a realistic manner, the contributory negligence o n
the part of an officer, and while determining any omission or lapses on the
part of an officer, the bearing of such lapses on the loss suffered by the
department have reconsidered
and that the extenuating circumstances in which the duties were performed by
the officer shall have to be given due weight. It was stated that an order of
recovery of loss suffered by the department under Rule 204 and sub Rule-4
cannot stand on a standalone basis, without fulfilling the pre-conditions of
Rules 106 and 107 of the same rules.
9. It was further
submitted that punishment of recovery of an amount is a special type of
punishment, and it can be awarded only when there is a proven loss to the
Government, and the nexus of the delinquent official to that loss had been
proved. It was submitted that in this case neither the nexus has been proved
nor any loss has been caused on account of any actions of the applicant, and
therefore, the punishment of recovery has been awarded based on an erroneous
decision arrived at on the question of law and material irregularity, which had
resulted in a punishment listed through the impugned orders Annexure A-1 &
A-2. It was submitted that in the Phalodi fraud case, neither the investigation
is complete, or has any recovery been made from the alleged Principal
offenders, but still levying a penalty of recovery of Rs 60000/- from the
applicant is violative of the principles of natural justice, in the absence of
any proof of the allegation that any loss has been caused to Government by any
lapse or omission on the part of the applicant. It was, therefore, proved that
neither the findings arrived at in the impugned orders are established on
material aspects, nor mandatory provisions have been complied with, and
therefore, the order of punishment deserves to be quashed and the OA deserves
to be allowed.
10. Heard. The case was argued vehemently by both the
sides.
11. In the instant case,
the show cause notice and charge memo under Rule-10 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965
was issued through Annexure A-3 dated 10-6-2010, which does not require a detailed
departmental enquiry to be held. The applicant did submit his reply dated
14-06-2010, but the respondents proceeded ahead to pass the impugned order at
Annexure A-2 dated 21-06-2010, which is a reasoned and speaking order up to the
penultimate paragraph, holding the applicant to be one of the subsidiary
offenders. However, nowhere hat order it has been sated or determined as to he amount of Rs 60000/- had been arrived
at being ordered to be recovered from the applicant. Since the applicant was to
be retire within 9 days, on 30-06-2010, under duress, he has had to pay the
amount in order to obtain the NOC drawing his retiry benefits. He submitted detailed defence to the appellate authority on 05.08.2010
as discussed through the impugned order Annexure A-1, the appellate Authority has upheld the
imposition of minor penalty upon the applicant, and further upheld the recovery
of Rs 60000/- ordered from the applicant under Rule-27 of the CCS(CCA) Rules,
1965.
12. It was submitted by
the learned counsel for the applicant that the department has been acting in the partial manner
in regard to that of
subsidiary offenders identified in Phalodi fraud case. In some of their cases,
in respect of those who are in service, even MACP and other financial benefits
are being granted in the routine, but from all those from that list of
subsidiary offenders identified by the department who have been retiring, arbitrarily
fixed amounts have been ordered to be recovered, and recovery of such
arbitrarily fixed amounts has been effected before the retirement in each such
case.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the amount for recovery have been fixed according to the level/
duties which the concerned official had failed to discharge and that the determination
of the amount for recovery from both the principal and subsidiary offenders
identified had been made depending upon the level of failure of performance of
their responsibility.
14. I am not quite convinced with the argument put forth by
the learned counsel for the respondents, especially so because no amount has so
far been determined for being recovered from the principal offenders of the
Phalodi Fraud case, who are still facing the departmental enquiry, as well as
the criminal case in the Special CBI court.
15. The impugned order at Annexure
A-1 and A-2 also are partially defective in as much as while they have gone
ahead to order for recovery of Rs 60,000/- from the applicant, apparently under
sub-Rule 4 of Rule 204 of the Post Office Saving Bank Manual Vol-1, the order
themselves nowhere state about the quantum of or the amount of such recovery to
have been determined in a proper manner,
because that would have required adherence to the principles of Rules 106 and
107 also as cited above, which would essentially require the quantum of
contributory negligence on the part of the delinquent Government official to be
equally determined, which has not been done in this case. When the total
quantum of loss suffered by the Department in the Phalodi fraud case, itself
has yet to have been correctly assessed and totaled up, the respondent
department can not be allowed to state that the quantum of responsibilities for
the loss suffered apportioned upon the applicant before this tribunal had been
arrived at in realistic manner. Also , the show cause notice issued to the
applicant herein through Annexure A-3 dated 10.06.2010 was only with reference
to Rule-16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and
in the charge memo enclosed , while mention had been made of Rule-38(3) of the
P&T manual, and CCS (conduct) rule 1964 of Rule – 3 (i) (ii), no mention
had been made of any charge under Rule 204 of the Postal Manual, under which
only such recovery could have been ordered to be made from the applicant.
16. It has also to be seen as to whether recovery from the
applicant could have been ordered by the respondents under the CCS (CCA) Rules
1965 itself. This brings me to the fallacy of there being only ten kind of penalties
under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, as it
commonly believed. A close perusal of Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules reveals as
follows :-
The following
penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereunder provided, be
imposed on the Government servant, namely:-
Minor Penalties
(i)
Censure;
(ii)
Withholding
of his promotion;
(iii) Recovery
form his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the
Government by negligence or breach of orders.
(iii)(a)
Reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a period of not
exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his
pension.
(iv)
Withholding
of increment of pay
Major Penalties
(v)
Save
as provided for in Clause (iii) (a), reduction to a lower stage in the time
scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or
not the Government servant will earn increments of pay during the period of
such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or
will not have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay;
(vi)
Reduction
to lower time-scale of pay, grade, post of service which shall ordinarily be a
bar to the promotion of the Government servant to the time-scale of pay, grade,
post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further directions
regarding condition of restoration to the grade or post of Service from which
the Government servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such
restoration, to that grade, post of Services;
(vii)
Compulsory
retirement;
(viii)
Removal
from services which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under
the Government;
(ix)
Dismissal
from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment
under the Government;
Provided that in every case in which the charge of possession
of assets disproportionate to known source of income of the charge of
acceptance from any person of gratification, other that legal remuneration, as
a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act is
established, the penalty mentioned in Clause (viii) and Clause (Xi) shall be imposed;
Provided further
that in any exceptional case and fro special reasons recorded in writing, any
other penalty may be imposed.
Explanation……………………………………………………………
Thus, it is seen that from the five categories of minor
penalties enumerated in Sub-Rules 11 (i), 11(ii), 11 (iii), 11(iii)(a) and 11
(iv), and the five categories of major penalties enumerated in Sub-Rules 11
(v), 11 (vi), 11 (vii), 11 (viii) and 11 (ix), there is an 11th
category of penalty also, described within Rule 11, which is included in the
second proviso o the Rule 11 cited above, whereby, in any exceptional
circumstances and for special reasons recovered in writing, any other penalty
may also be imposed. Rule 14 and 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, deal with the
procedure for imposition of the major penalties, and for action to be taken on
the inquiry report. Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, deals with the
procedure for imposition of minor penalties. There is no such parallel specific
rule or provision in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, under which, as cited above, in
any exceptional circumstance or case and for special reasons recorded in
writing, any other penalty may be imposed. Even Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rule,
1965, providing for special procedure in certain cases deals only with the
procedure prescribed under Rule-14 to Rule 18 of CCS (CCA) rule 1965.
Therefore, it is obvious that the second proviso to Rule 11 is a stand alone
and independent provision for which no specific procedure has been prescribed
18. It,
therefore, appears appropriate that in case of any action taken against the
delinquent Government servant which does not fall under the 5 categories of
minor penalties, or the 5 categories of major penalties, but which has to be
classified as fan exceptional case, the only requirement is (a) a corollary
that under the Constitution of India the delinquent Government servant should
have had a reasonable opportunity of being heard regarding the exceptional or
compelling circumstances.
19. Therefore, it is
held that after having issued to the applicant a charge sheet under -16 of
CCS(CCA) Rule 1965, the penalty of recovery could have been ordered by the
Respondents was as an exceptional case, for the reasons to be recorded in
writing and the delinquent government servant should have had a reasonable opportunity of being heard regarding the
exceptional and compelling circumstances, on the basis of which such recovery was being
ordered, which is not the case in the instant case. Therefore, the impugned
orders dated 31-03-2011 (Annexure A-1) and f21-06-2010 (Annexure A-2) are set
aside, and the respondents are ordered to refund the amount of Rs 60000/-
forcibly recovered from the applicant just prior to his superannuation, without
determining the quantum of negligence attributable to him, and the exact amount
of quantum of loss attributable to him on account of the negligence of the
applicant, with GPF rate of interest from the date of recovery of such amount,
till the actual date of refund of such amount.
20. The OA is therefore,
allowed, but there shall be no order as to costs.
(Sd/-) (SUDHIR KUMAR) MEMBER (A)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
O.A. No. 382/2011
with
O.A. No. 353/2011
with MA No. 19/2012 &
O.A. No. 354/2011 witn MA No.20/2012
Date of Order 22-05-2012
(Resered on 02-03-2012)
Hon’nle MR. SUDHIR KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
O.A. No. 382/2010
Bhanwar Lal Regar,
S/O Shri Ghasi Ram
R/O Regar Basti,
Ward No. 38
Tehsitl- Churu,
District Churu
(Office Address:-
Working as SPM
Bagia School Road
Post Office at Churu
in Postal Department) -Applicant
By Advocate Mr. S.P.Singh
Versus
1. Union nof India, through
The Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of
Communication, Department of Post,
Dak Tar Bhawan, new Delhi
2. The Chief Post Master General,
Rajasthan Circle, jaipur-302007
3. The Director o/o Post Master General,
Western Region, Jodhpur
4. Superintendent of Post Offices
Churu Division,
Churu -Respondents
Advocate: Mr. MS Godara for Mr Vinit Mathur ASG)
OA – 353/2011
Hardewa Ram Dhaka
S/O Late Shri Pura
Ram Dhaka
R/o H. No. 13,
Gandhi Basti, Ward No. 1,
Sujangarh District-
Churu,
(Office Address:
Working as SPM at
Bidasar Post
Office). -Applicant
By Advocate; Mr. SP Singh)
Versus
1. Union nof India, through
The Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of
Communication, Department of Post,
Dak Tar Bhawan, new Delhi
2. The Chief Post Master General,
Rajasthan Circle, jaipur-302007
3. The Director o/o Post Master General,
Western Region, Jodhpur
4. Superintendent of Post Offices
Churu Division, Churu -Respondents
Advocate: Mr. MS Godara for
Mr Vinit Mathur ASG)
O.A. No. 354/2011
Chauthmal Pareek L.
S/O Late Shri Tusli
Ram
R/o Vill – PO-
Kulasar
Tehsil: Sardarsahar,
Office Address:
Working as LSG Sardarshahar
Postal Dept.) -Applicant
By advocate: Mr SP Singh
Versus
1. Union of India, through
The
Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry
of Communication, Department of Post,
Dak
Tar Bhawan, new
Delhi
2. The Chief Post Master General,
Rajasthan Circle, jaipur-302007
3. The Director o/o Post Master General,
Western Region, Jodhpur
4. Superintendent of Post Offices
Churu
Division, Churu -Respondents
Advocate: Mr. MS Godara for Mr Vinit Mathur ASG)
O R D E R
These three cases
of three individual applicants came to be heard together
and reserved for orders together, and , therefore, are being disposed of
through a common order, since the cases of the applicants and the pleadings are
similar in nature for the purposes of discussion of the facts of their cases
and arriving at the findings. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the
case in OA No. 382/2011 Bhanwar Lal Regar can be discussed first, in detail as
the leading case.
2. The applicant of OA
No. 382/2011 was initially appointed as an Extra Departmental Agent (EDA in
short) in the Postal Department, which is categorized as a civil post, but not
a Government employment. Therefore, he became a Group – D employee of the
respondent Postal Department on 15-01-1978, and entered substantive appointment
with the government from that date. Very soon, he qualified in the selection
and was appointed as a Postman on 19-08-1978.
3. Therefore, the
applicant appeared in the examination for selection for the post of Postal
Assistant, which is conducted by the respondent department on a centralized
basis, and he was declared selected. He proceeded for training, and after
training he was posted as a Postal Assistant/ Clerk w.e.f. 15-01-1990. the respondent / Postal Department
was not operating the Assured Career Progression
Scheme earlier, but had a parallel Scheme for granting financial up gradation
in the nature of the Time Bound Promotion, TBOP in short, on completion of 16
years of continuous service in a post and grade of pay without any promotion
and later another Scheme of Biennial Cadre Review (BCR in short ) was
introduced by the respondent department for those who had completed 26 years of
service without any promotion, or with only one promotion, to be granted the
second financial up gradation. Therefore, after the 6th Central Pay
Commission when the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced
by the Government, (MACP Scheme, in short) the respondent department adopted
the MACP Scheme for employees for grant of financial upgradations in the case
of stagnation without promotions for 10/20/30 years.
4. The applicant Shri
Bhanwar Lal Regar was granted his first financial up gradation under TBOP
Scheme w.e.f. 05-02-2006, 16 years after the date of his joining as a Postal
Assistant. Therefore, the applicant was granted another second financial up
gradation under the MACP Scheme through the order dated 31-03-2010 (Annexure A-2) on completion of 20
years of his service as on 15-02-2010 from the date 16-02-2010. however, the applicant is aggrieved
that on 05-05-2011, he was issued with a show cause notice stating that the second MACP financial up gradation
benefit had been granted to him erroneously, to which he replied on 26-05-2011,
but through order dated 10-08-2011, impugned at Annexure A-1, the benefit of
second MACP granted to him was withdrawn by the respondents by stating as
follows:-
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS INDIA
O/O The Supdt of Post Offices Churu Dn. Churu-331001
Memo No. B2-91(B), Dated at Churu the 10-08-2011
1. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
2. I have gone through
the relevant record, ruling and representation, said Shri Bhanwar Lal Regar
Promoted from Group D to Postman cadre on 19-08-78 and got second promotion as Postal
Asstt. On 15-01-1990 and thereafter, on completion of 16 years of service, the
official was upgraded under TBOP on 5-2-2006, as such the official has already
availed three financial upgradation from his entry grade, Hence, the official
is not entitled for further financial upgradation in accordance with
Directorate New Delhi letter No. 4-7/MACPS/2009/PC dated 18-10-2010.
3. Therefore, IInd
MACP granted to him in pay band Rs 5200-20200 with grade pay Rs 4200 vide this
office memo No. B2-91 (B) dated 31-3-2010 was irregular and hereby ordered to
be withdrawn”.
5. The applicant is
before us on the ground that the impugned orders have been passed without
application of mind, and appreciation of correct factual and legal aspects of
the matter. He has submitted that the respondents had correctly considered
earlier his entry grade to the department as Postal Assistant, and had granted
him financial upgradation under TBOP Scheme on completion 16 years of service
as Postal Assistant, and second MACP on completion of 20 years of service as
Postal Assistant. He has submitted that the respondents could not have counted
his service from entry into service as Group-D for either TBOP or MACP, and
suddenly counting his appointment from Group-D to Postman, and selection from
Postman cadre to Postal Assistant cadre, as financial upgradation/ promotions
wrong on the part of the respondents.
6. In support of his
contention, the applicant had cited the of one Shri Remeshwar Lal mali, who was
earlier appointed as EDA, and then later appeared in the examination for
selection for the post of Group-D and then later appeared in the examination
for selection for the post of Postman, Thereafter, the respondents had first
granted him financial upgradation by counting his initial appointment in the
post of Postman. But, later, in his case also, the MACP granted to him was
withdrawn, and pension was not fixed accordingly, but the employee concerned
had approached this Tribunal in OA No. 55/2011. Later when in his case the
respondents modified his pension order through order dated 08-06-2011 produced by the applicant herein at
Annexure A-9 of the OA, the said OA was sought to be withdrawn, and was
dismissed as withdrawn on 06-09-2011. The applicant herein, therefore,
sought to be treated on the principle of enquiry and parity though in the case
of the said Shri Rameshwar Lal mali, there was no judicial determination
of his entitlement. In the result, the applicant had prayed for the impugned
order dated 10-08-2011 to be set aside, and for being conferred the grade pay
of Rs 4200/- instead of Rs 2800/- as presently granted, with all subsequential benefits and had prayed for any
other directions under the facts and circumstances of the case, apart from
cost.
7. The respondents had
in their reply written statement tiled on 22-12-2011 stoutly defended their
actions, and had submitted that his selection from Group D to Postman was his
first promotion, and when the applicant further qualified his LGOs examination,
he had got his second promotion as Postal Assistant and therefore, TBOP
benefits could have been granted to him only on completion of 16 years of
Government service, in the Postal Assistants cadre. But since he had already
availed three promotions / upgradations from the grade of his entry into
service, he was not entitled for the same, and the applicant was erroneously
granted second MACP benefit in the Pay Band of Rs 5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs
4200/- w.e.f. 16-20-2010 through Anexure A-2, when was held to be irregular as
per DG New Delhi, letter dated 21-09-2010and as per the directions of CPMG,
Rajasthan Circle dated 20-10-2010 conveyed by the PMG Rajasthan (W) Region,
Jodhpur through his letter dated 25-10-2010. it was submitted that since a show
cause notice was issued to the applicant, and his reply was considered there is
nothing wrong in the order at Annexure A-23 dated 31-03-2010 wrongly passed earlier having been
withdrawn. It was further submitted that since he has already availed three
promotions/;financial upgradations, therefore, the applicant is not entitled
for further financial upgradations. It was further submitted that TBOP / BCR
Scheme is a separate Scheme for the purpose of granting financial upgrdations,
which has no relevance with the new MACP Scheme, and since the MACP befit was wrongly granted, only that had been withdrawn,
while the TBOP Scheme earlier granted to the
applicant has not been withdrawn. It is therefore, prayed that the OA is liable
to be dismissed.
8. The applicant filed
a rejoinder dated 30-01-2012, more or less reiterating his contentions as
raised in the OA, and stating that any selection and appointment, which clearly
states that it is a recruitment, cannot be called a promotion, and, therefore,
his selection both to the post of Postman, and later to the post of Postal
Assistant, were not promotions, but were rather recruitments. It was reiterated
that selection and promotion are two different things and promotion can only be
in a line of promotional hierarchy, and not to an ex-cadre post. Like in the
case of the applicant being selected as a Postal Assistant. It was submitted
that the respondents have themselves clarified through Annexure A-6 dated
25-04-2011 that when an official joined Group-D post and later he was declared
successful in Postman examination in which he had appeared after fulfilling the
eligibility condition of Gramin Dak Sevak and thereafter he was allowed to join
in the Postman cadre under the direct recruitment quota on regular basis and as
such the regular service for the purpose TBOPs commences from the date of join
in Postman cadre on direct recruitment
basis. This clarification Annexure A-6 was issued by the Govt of India,
Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts. Pay Commission Cell
through letter No. 4-7/MACPs/2009/PCC and had amply clarified that the
selection of Group-D to Postman is not a promotion.
9. He further
submitted that similar selection for the post of Postal Assistant by appearing
at the relevant examination cannot also be called to be a promotion. Therefore,
it was reiterated by him that it cannot be held that he had received three
promotions, because appointment to an ex-cadre post cannot be considered as
promotion, when it is not that one can claim promotion to that post in the
hierarchical line of promotion to that post from the earlier post, and the
department does not permit promotion from Group-D to Postman, and from Postman
to Postal Assistant, and from Postal assistant to Inspector Posts, by way of
promotion itself. It was further reiterated that any selection, recruitment
appointment or absorption in an ex-cadre has to be treated as a separate entry
into a fresh grade for the purpose or ACP/MACP/financial upgradations, and also
for TBOP/BCR financial benefits. It was submitted that the respondents cannot
be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time when the have themselves
admitted that appointment from Group-D to Postman and from Postman to Postal
Assistant, was done through a process of selection. In the result, it was
prayed that the OA be allowed and the impugned order Annexure A-1 be quashed.
In support of his contention, the applicant had cited the letter dated 18-10-2010 issued by the pay commission cell of
the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & IT, clarifying the
doubt regarding eligibility of MACP Scheme benefits as follows:-
|
S. No.
|
Point on which
clarification sought
|
Status position
|
|
1.
|
Eligibility of MACPs to a direct recruited Postal Assistant conferred with TBOP.
It ha been represented that in some Circles the directly
recruited Postal Assistants who were accorded financial upgradation under one
time bound promotion scheme on completion of 16 years of satisfactory service
are not being given the 2nd MACPs on the ground that the officials
have not completed 10 years of service TBOP Scale/grade with grade pay of Rs
2800.
|
Attention is drawn to Para No 28 of Annexure-1 to this
office OM dated 18-09-2009. it is stated that a directly
recruited Postal Assistant who got one financial upgradation under TBOP
Scheme after rendering 16 years of service before 01-09-2008, will become
eligible to 2nd MACP on completion of 20 years of continuous
service from date of entry in Government service or 10 years in TBOP grade
pay or scale or combination of both, whichever is earlier. However, financial
upgradation under MACPS cannot be conferred from the date prior to 01-09-2008 and such 2nd financial upgradation for the above
referred category of officials has to be given from 01-09-2008. They will also become eligible
for 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of service or after
rendering 10 years service in 2nd MACP, whichever is earlier.
|
OA. 353/2011
10. The applicant of
this OA Hardewa Ram Dhaka was similarly placed as the applicant of the above
cited OA No. 382/2011, only the relevant dates being different in his case. He
was recruited and appointed as Group-D employee and designated as MTS w.e.f. 5-10-1978, thereafter he qualified in the
departmental Postman examination, and was appointed as a Postman on 9-12-1979. Subsequently, he further qualified
in LGOs examination, and was appointed as Postal Assistant w.e.f. 29-8-1983, and on completion of 10 years of
service in the Postal Assistant cadre, under TBOP Scheme, he had been granted
his first financial upgradation on 3-9-1999. In his case also, a similar order
dated 10-08-2011 was passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices,
Churu. Respondent No 4 withdrawing the second MACP benefit granted to him in
his case earlier through the same OM dated 31-03-2010 Annexure A2), which was
produced by the applicant of the earlier also. All other facts and submissions
being in parallel, they need to be re-produced here in order to avoid
repetition.
11. The respondents had
also filed an exactly similarly worded reply written statement, denying any
wrong doing and stoutly defending their action and praying for the OA to be
dismissed. The rejoinder filed by the applicant also was similar to that filed
by the applicant in OA No. 382/2011 and need not be discussed again for the
sake of brevity. The applicant had also filed MA No. 19.2012 on 01-02-2012 praying that the DOP&T, and
Senior Accounts Office are necessary parties, seeking to implead them as
Respondents 5 &6 in the OA, but that MA was not allowed, and the case was
heard on merits, straightaway, with the existing array of respondents.
Therefore, MA No 19/2012 is rejected.
OA. 354/2011
12. The applicant of
this OA Chauthmal pareek has also made exactly the same prayer as the
applicants of OAs No. 382/2011 and 353/2011, only the relevant dates being
different in his case. He was also recruited and appointed as Group-D employee
w.e.f. 13-06-1979, and after qualifying in the departmental Postman
examination, he was appointed as a Postman on 12-10-1982. Thereafter he appeared and
qualified in LGOs examination and was appointed as Postal Assistant w.e.f. 24-08-1983, and on completion of 16 years of
service in the Postal Assistant Cadre, under the TBOP Scheme, he had been
granted his first financial upgradation on 27-8-1999. Under the MACP Scheme, through the
same order dated 31-3-2010, annexed in the earlier two OAs
also, he was also granted the second MACP benefit on completion of 20 years of
service in the Postal Assistant cadre. But through an exactly similarly worded
order, after giving him a show cause notice, in his case also through order
dated 10-08-2011, the second MACP benefit granted to him also had been withdrawn.
13. The respondents had
also filed an exactly similarly worded reply written statement, taking exactly
the similar grounds, and had prayed for the OA to be dismissed.
14. The applicant had
thereafter filed a rejoinder on 01-02-2012, which was also similar worded as in
the earlier two OAs, and need not be discussed again for the sake of brevity.
The applicant of this OA had also filed MA No. 20/2012 on 01-02-2012, praying
that the DOP&T and Senior Accounts Officer are necessary parties, and had
sought to implead them as Respondents 5 & 6
in the OA, but that MA was not considered before the case came to be
heard for final hearing, and that MA No. 20/2012 is, therefore, rejected.
15. Heard the cases in
detail. I Have given my anxious consideration to the facts of the cases.
16. It is obvious that
appointment from the civil post of EDA to a regular Government employment as
Group-D is a fresh appointment, and that has not been disputed by the
respondents either. Thereafter when, as
Group-D employees, these three applicants faced a process of selection, and
were appointed as Postmen such selection cannot be called a promotion, as it
was not done in the course of natural progression through seniority. Any
advancement in career which is based on a process of selection especially
undertaken for that purpose cannot be called as a promotion. A promotion has to
be in higher category in the same cadre, or service, or through a prescribed
avenue of promotion, but without an element of a process of selection, through tests
or examinations etc.
17. The meaning of the
word “promotion” was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the ase of Director General, Rice Research Institute,
Cuttack & anr V Khetra Mohan Das, 1994 (5) SLR 728 and it was
held as follows:-
A promotion is different from fitment
by way of rationalization and initial adjustment, Promotion, as is generally
understood, means; the appointment of a person of any category or grade of a
service or a class of service to a higher category or Grade of such service or
class. In C.C.Padmanabhan v. Director of Public Instructions, 1980 (Supp) SC
668: (AIR 1981 SC 64)) this Court observed that “Promotion” as understood in
ordinary parlance and also as a term frequently used in cases involving service
laws means that a person already holding a position would have a promotion if
he is appointed to another post which satisfies either higher category of the
same service or that the new post carries higher grade in the same service or
class”.
18. Further, in the case
of State of Rajasthan v. Fatehchand Soni, (1998) 1 SSC 562, at p.567: 1995
(7) Scale 168: 1995 (9) JT523: 196 SC (L&S) 340: 1996 (1) SLR 1.1., The
Hon’ble Apex Court findings can be paraphrased and summarized as follows:-
“In the literal sense the
word”promote” means “to advise to a
higher position grade, or honour”, So also “promotion’ or grade”. (See Webster’s
Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edn. P. 1009) ‘promotion’ thus not
only covers advancement to higher position or rank but also implies advancement
to a higher grade. In service law also the expression ‘promotion’ has been
understood in the wider sense and it has been held that ‘promotion can be
either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post”.
19. In a similar manner,
while being Postmen, the three applicants in these three OAs faced the Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE, in short) and qualified to become
Postal Assistants, their joining as Postal Assistants was not in the nature of
promotion in their earlier existing service or cadre, but was a career
advancement through a process of selection therefore for the purpose of grant
of TBOP/BCR financial upgradation earlier and MACP financial upgradatrion now,
the dates which are relevant to be taken into account for the purpose of counting
the periods of their stagnation is the period spent by the applicants as Postal
Assistant. In that sense, the clarification issued by the Pay Commission Cell
of the department of Posts, Ministry of Commissions & IT on 25-04-2011
through file No. 4-7/MACPs/2009/-PCC, as cited in para 8 above, is correct. The
only problem with that clarification is that it stopped at the point of
clarifying that when the GDS first joined in a Group-D post, and was later
declared as successful in the Postman examination, the regular service for the
purpose of MACP would be deemed to commence from the date of his joining as a
Postman in Postman cadre on direct recruit basis. But it is obvious that the ----------------would follow, and when the postman
appears at the exams and gets selected to a new Cadre as a Postal Assistant,, even
it is start of a new innings for him, and for the purpose of counting his
stagnation, if any, the date of his joining as Postal Assistant alone would be relevant,
and his previous career advancements canno0t be called to be promotions within
the definition of the work ‘promotion’, as is required for the grant of
TBOP/BCR benefit consideration, and for consideration for eligibility for
financial upgradation on account of stagnation under the MACP Scheme.
20. It is therefore,
clear that Para-2 of the impugned order in all these three OAs at Annexure A-1
dated 10-08-2011, passed by the Supdt, of post Offices, Churu Division, Churu
was incorrect, and the eligibility of these three applicants for the grant of
TBOP/BCR benefits earlier , and MACP
benefit thereafter, has to be counted only from the date they were
substantively appointed as Postal Assistants. Therefore, the impugned Annexure
A-1 dated 10-08-2011 in all the three OAs are set aside,
and the grant of MACP benefit correctly granted to the three applicants earlier
through the order dated 31-03-2010 is upheld. The applicants shall be
accordingly entitled to all the arrears, with interest at the GPF rate of
interest being payable on the arrears of the financial upgradation benefits
admissible to the applicants, correctly granted earlier on 31-03-2010.
21. The three OAs are
allowed in terms of the above directions, and the two MAs have already been
rejected, in paras 11 and 14 above, but there shall be no order as to costs.22. Let a copy of this order be placed in OA No.
353/2011 and OA No. 354/2011.
Sd/-(SUDHIR KUMAR) MEMBER (A)
DG Posts No. 44-14/2009-SPB-I dated 12-07-2012
Sub: Amendment of
Department of Posts (Postman and Mail Guard) Recruitment Rules, 2010.
I
am directed to forward herewith a copy of Department of posts (Postman and Mail
Guard) (Recruitment Rules, 2012 notified in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, Part II Section 3 Sub Section (i) dated 28.06.2012.
2. It is requested that the amendment in the
Recruitment Rules may be brought to the notice of all concerned.
Sd/- Raj Kumar,
Director (Staff)
Copy of Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part
II Section 3 Sub Section (i) dated 28.06.2012.
MINISTRY
OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMTION TECHNOLOGY
(Department
of Posts)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 28th
June, 2012
G.S.R. 511(E) – In exercise of the powers
conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution, the President
hereby makes the following rules to amend the Department of Posts (Postman and
Mail Guard) Recruitment rules, 2010, namely:-
1. 1. These
Rules may be called the Department of Posts (Postman and Mail Guard)
Recruitment (Amendments) Rule,2012.
2. They shall come into force on the
date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the Schedule to the Department
of Posts (Postman and Mail Guard) Recruitment Rules, 2010, against serial
number 1 relating to the post of Postman,-
(i) in column (8) in the entry, after
the word “Matriculation”, the words “or Equivalent” shall be omitted
(ii) In column (11), in the entry.--
(A)
for clauses (a) and (b), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-
“(a) 50% on the basis lf Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination by promotion from amongst Multi Tasking Staff of the
recruiting Division with three years regular service in the grade including
service put in, if any, against an erstwhile Group ‘D’ post on regular basis as
on the 1st January of the year to which the vacancy(ies) belong
failing which, from amongst Multi
Tasking Staff of the neighboring Division / Unit on the basis of the said
Examination, failing which by direct recruitment from open market..”
(B) for clauses (c) and (d), of the following clause shall be substituted, namely:--
“(b) 50% by
direct recruitment on the basis of Competitive Examination Limited to Gramin
Dak
Sevaks* of the recruiting Division who have worked for
at least five years in that capacity as on the 1st day of January of
the year to which the vacancy(ies) belong, failing which from amongst Gramin
Dak Sevaks of the neighboring Division/Unit on the basis of the said
Examination, failing which by direct recruitment from open market.
*Gramin Dak Sevaks are holders of Civil posts but they are outside the regular Civil Service due to which their appointment
will be by direct recruitment.”,
(iii) In
column (12), in the entry,--
(A) for clause
(i), Note 1 and clause (ii), the following clause shall be substituted\,
namely:--.
“50% on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination by promotion from amongst Multi Tasking Staff of the recruiting
Division with three years regular service in the grade including service put
in, if any, against an erstwhile Group ‘D’ post on regular basis as on the 1st
January of the year to which the vacancy(ies) belong failing which, from amongst Multi Tasking Staff of the
neighboring Division / Unit on the basis of the said Examination, failing which
by direct recruitment from open market..”
(B)
“Note 2” shall be re-numbered as “Note 1” and in the “Note 1” as so
re-numbered, the
brackets, words and figures” (Applicable for (i) and (ii) above)” shall
be omitted:
(c )
“Note 3” shall be renumbered as “Note 2”.
(F.No.
44-14/2009-SPN-I)
RAJ KUMAR,
Director (Staff)
Footnote: The principal rules were
published vide number G.S.R. 983(E), dated the 20th December, 2010.
DG
Posts No. 37-33/2009-SPB-I dated 11-07-2012
Sub: Amendment of
Department of Posts (Multi Tasking Staff) Recruitment Rules, 2010.
I
am directed to forward herewith a copy of Department of posts (Multi Tasking
Staff) (Amendment) Recruitment Rules, 2012 notified in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, Part II Section 3, Sub Section (i) dated 28.06.2012.
2. It is requested that the amendment in the
Recruitment Rules may be brought to the notice of all concerned.
Sd/- Raj Kumar,
Director (Staff)
Copy of Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part
II Section 3 Sub Section (i) dated 28.06.2012.
MINISTRY
OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMTION TECHNOLOGY
(Department
of Posts)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 28th
June, 2012
G.S.R. 511(E) – In exercise of the powers
conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution, the President
hereby makes the following rules to amend the Department of Posts Multi
Tasking Staff Recruitment rules, 2010,
namely:-
1. 1. These may be called the Department of Posts Multi
Tasking Staff Recruitment (Amendments)
Rule,2012.
2. They shall come into force on the
date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In
the Schedule to the Department of Posts Multi Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2010:--
(i) against serial number 1 relting to post of
Multi Tasking Staff, in column 7, in the entry, in “Note 1” after the words
“Ladakh Division of”, the words”Jammu
and Kashmir State, Lahaul and SPiti District and Pangi Sub Division of” shall
be inserted:
(ii) against serial number 2 relating to the post
of Multi Tasking Staff:--
(a)
in column (8), in the entry, after the word “Matriculation”, the words “
or Equivalent” shall be omitted:
(b)
in column (ii), in the entry:--
(A) in clause
(i), for figures “50%, the figures “25%” shall be substituted:
(B) after clause (iii), the following clause
shall be inserted, namely:--
“(iv) 25% by direct recruitment from open
market.
(F. No. 37-33/2009-SPB-I), Raj Kumar, Director (Staff)
DG Posts No. A-234012/5/2011 dated 13-7-2012
Subject: Holding of PA/SA Direct Recruitment for 2011
& 2012 through approved Outsourced Agency
This is regarding conducting of PA/SA Direct Recruitment
Examination for filling up vacancies of Postal Assistants, Sorting Assistants,
PA MMS, P
A RLO and PA Foreign Post for
the year 2011 & 2012.
2. The last Examination for PA/SA DR Examination was conducted
in November 2010 in old pattern. With a view to streamline the procedure to
suit the present day situation, it has been decided by the Competent Authority
to switch over to the new system of Objective Type Multiple Choice Questions
through approved outsourced agency i.e. M/s CWC Ltd. This was circulated to all
the Heads of the Circles vide Directorate’s letter No. A-34012/2/2011-DE dated 13-07-2011..
3. The procedure, scheme and syllabus for the examination to
fill up the posts of Postal Assistant/ Sorting Assistant by Direct Recruitment
has since been revised and circulated with the approval of the Competent
Authority vide Directorate’s letter No. 60-9/2009-SPN-I dated 08-05-2012.
4. The department has decided to conduct the direct recruitment
examination for Pas/SAs, PA MMS, PA RLO and PF Foreign Post for the years 2011
& 2012 through approved outsourced agencyu on furnkey basis. A draft
notification has been prepared notifying the cost of application form,
examination fee, procedure to apply, mode of dispatch and last date of receipt
of application for, vacancy position, scale of pay, age limit, educational
qualification, pattern of examination, selection process, allocation of successful
candidates.
The following detailed
instruction are issued on the above subject:
i) Devising of Application form : The department t has devised
a standard Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) Application Form in consultation with
the outsourced agency. The OMR application form will be in Orange
colour containing 27 columns with a declaration. Each OMR application form will
have a specific number.
ii) DETAILS OF OMR KIT : The Agency will print OMR Application Forms and supply the kits to designated nodal
officers of the Circles. The Kit will be in the outer envelope and contain:
a) OMR Application Form bearing specific number
(b) Detailed information Brochure/ Instructions Sheet for
guidance of the candidates.
(c ) An envelope containing the address of the agency in which, Applicants
have to send OMR Application Form
(d) Window Enveope for dispatch of Admit Cards to the Applicants
(Applicant has to affix Rs 5 postage stamp on above window envelope).
iii) COST OF APPLIDATION FORM: The cost of Application form is Rs 50/-.
5. The Examination for eligible Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) to fill
up the unfilled vacancies of LGO Examination will also be held as per extant
rules/guidelines of the department on the same day and ti9me decided for Direct
Recruitment as per the same syllabus etc. Accordingly, a format of application
for GDS devised in consultation with approved Outsourced Agency and the agency
will supply required umber of copies to circle for obtaining the applications
from eligible Gramin Dak Sevaks for their submission to M/s CMC Ltd. Through
concerned Nodal Officer with an Inventory indicting the name, designation,
category, Centre Code etc. The eligibility of GDS Applicant has to be verified
by the nodal officer in consultation with Competent Authority of concerned GDS.
6. Pre-examination
activities will be as follows:-
A notification
for Direct Recruitment of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistants is enclosed to be
issued y the Chief Postmasters General on a common date i.e., 11-08-2012 in
leading local newspapers in English / Hindi. Heads of Circles may
appoint DPS (HQs) as Nodal Officer and issue suitable instructions to the
Circle Nodal Officers to initiate necessary action to start the process of PASA
Direct Recruitment Examination as per notification dated 11-08-2012 issued by Circle for the said examination and
maintain close cooperation with M/s CMC Ltd. New Delhi.
Advertisement for PAs/SAs Direct Recruitment Examination
to be issued by each Circle in leading Regional newspapers in English and
Hindi.
Apart from the above, the Roles and responsibilities of
the Nodal officer will be as under:-
o
Handling
examination activities and responsibilities of Department of posts and
maintaining liaison with M/s CMC authorities in the Circle in respect of PA/SA
Direct Recruitment examination to be conducted as per new system of
examinations.
o
The Nodal Officer
will place the indent to M/s CMC Ltd. Under intimation to the Directorate for
Application Form kit (AFKs) for PA/SA Direct Recruitment Examination containing
Application Form, Instruction Sheet and Envelopes as mentioned above. The Nodal
officer will place the indent on M/s CMC Ltd. For the Application Form Kits
under intimation to Directorate and CMC will supply the AFKs to the Nodal
Officer of the Circle concerned as per indent.
o
A status report
of sale of Allocation Forms is required to be submitted after every 7 days as
per the enclosed Annexure-I. After 15 days of sale of AFKs, the further
requirement of AFKs will be sent to M/s CMC Ltd under intimation to
Directorate.
o
Sale of
the Application Forms will commence from 11th August 2012 and closes by 25-09-2012. There will
not be any sale of OMR AFK after 25-09-2012.
o
Accordingly, the
issue of ADG 67/UCR receipt towards payment of examination fee for Rs 200 will
also be stopped along with the last date fixed for sale of OMR AFK. In no
circumstances, the issue of receipt towards payment of examination fee and sale
of OMR AFK will be permitted after 25-09-2012.
o
Indent for the Application
Forms is required to be submitted 10 days in advance to M/S CMC Ltd. To enable
them to assess the actual requirement. Further Applications Forms will be
replenished after assessment of the requirement, if any.
o
An orange colour
OMR Answer Sheet for PA/SA Direct
Recruitment Examination will be used during the Examination.
o
On receipt of Application
Form kits by the Nodal Officer from M/s CMC, the AFKs will be checked whether
the kits are in proper condition and CMC informed of damages, if any. The application
Form Kits will be packed in bundles of 100 in damage proof packing inside
corrugated boxes.
o
Dispatch of
Application Form Kits by the Circle Nodal Officer to the identified Post
Offices as per their requirement.
The Applicants will not
be submitting any testimonials/certificates along with OMR AFKs. Hence, they
are allowed provisionally based on declaration furnished by them. Therefore, at
the time of actual appointment of the selected candidates, every care is
required to be taken for verification of certificates of Educational
qualification, Caste, age concession for SC/ST/OBC/Ex-servicemen, details of
examination fee pai9d and character and antecedents. In the event of finding
any incorrect or false information, the candidature/selection of the candidate
will be cancelled.
8. It is further stated that the entire process
of the examination will continue to be confidential and except the designated
Nodal Officer of each Circle, no other officer/official of the Circle should
either correspond or contact M/s CMC Ltd. In any manner.
9. The copy of the notification has to be sent
to concerned recognized associations/organizations of SCs/STs.
10. The above contents may be brought to the notice
of all concerned.
11. Receipt of this letter may be kindly acknowledged.
Sd/- (VK Tiwary),
DDG(R&P)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
