Recovery case from post office

Remain confident.  Wait for 5 + 30 + 5 days for PIO response, counting from date of your Registration.

Then file First Appeal as follows:

First Appeal dt.3rd Aug, 2017 under RTI Act

Before : First Appeallate Authority,...............................Dept., of Posts,..................(full address)

Against: Central Public Information Officer,............................................................

Appellant:................................................................................................(Your full address)

Grounds for Appeal:  Appellant has filed RTI Application to CPIO on........................  CPIO ought to have either provided information or denied information stating such reasons under Sec.8 of RTI act, with justifications as per stipulations in RTI Act within 30 days under RTI Act.  CPIO has neither provided information nor denied information, neglecting his statutory obligation.  Treating this as deemed denial of information, that ought to have responded within 48 hours of receipt, under Life and Liberty clause, this first Appeal.

PRAYER: As this is pertaining to Pension, as per CIC decision both CPIO and FAA should respond within 48 hours.  Appellant prays for directions to CPIO to provide the information as expeditiously as possible free of cost.  Appellant also prays for written directions to CPIO for his negligence towards statutory obligation in not responding to RTI applications within 48 hours under Life and Liberty clause as per CIC decisions.

Place

Date                                                                                                                                         Appellant.

Originally posted by : G.L.N. Prasad
	Infact, there is insurance indemnifying  against such losses, but the institutions keep such facts a secret..  Even private persons can take such insurance against infidelity of their employees.

In Government departments, there is no provision for getting insurance to indemnify losses. Losses are recovered from employees or written of if not possible to recover.

Originally posted by : Brajendra Sharma
	Dear sir my father was expired on 13.08.2000 during service he was in post office & he was involved in loss fraud case during his service time.after death of father none payment was released to mohter including pension she was also expired on 22.01.2001 with out recieved any fund. provisional pension & fund was released to us on 14.04.2001. after 17 years when i am asking from department for the final releasing of fund they have given me letter for the recovering of 375000 of my father under PAD ACT.

In the case of a deceased employee at first the disciplinary case is closed. Secondly in the case of a deceased employee, any amount of loss so detected and on account of currency of charge sheet has to be written off. Thirdly, any such loss of the department cannot be recovered from the heirs of the deceased employee.

RTI route may languish you to some wrong path, except to get some information that may probably not help you sort out the problem effectively.

You may simply as the department to quote rule under which the recovery of loss has been desired to be made from the heirs/ family pensioner of the deceased employee.. The department may not be able to quote any such rule.

This is the query in RTI Application:     

Please provide me a copy of the extract of such circular/rule/notification that permits the dept., to recover from dependants such amounts under PAD Act.
 

According to learned  Jigyasu.

Thirdly, any such loss of the department cannot be recovered from the heirs of the deceased employee.

Now it is left to the department to explain as to how and under what regulation retirement benefits were put on hold.

A simple no reply  so far itself speaks volumes, as they are not in a position to handle the issue, as providing any information or denial for such specific exemption with justification is statutory obligation of the Authority.

Honestly I can not find any difference in soliciting that information under RTI Act within 30 days as a statutory obligation and Learned Jigyasu's new reply  "You may simply ??? as the department to quote rule under which the recovery of loss has been desired to be made from the heirs/ family pensioner of the deceased employee.. The department may not be able to quote any such rule.  

While providing such information under RTI Act within 48 hours under Life or Liberty is a statutory obligation, simply.....what else can be done to get that information on specific reasons for holding pensionery benefits is not clear.

I am also poor in understanding of the comment: RTI route may languish you to some wrong path, 
Is not proper to justify any comment /reply,, as to why certain path is not correct and the hurdles in that path ?
 

Dear GLN Prasad ji,

Of course RTI is a good weapon, for the purpose of date, if available, but what is the surety that the authorities will give correct information about ruling position? They can simply say, the rules are available in departmental publication, which are available in the open market or website.

But, since they have demanded the money, the straight way forward is to quote the rules & regulations under which the department can recover the share of loss happened to it through frqaud by someone else, which went undetected and not yet proved against the employee due to death in between the inquiry proceedings. Case has to be closed agaisnt the deceased employee. So that is the secret of "You may simply," which you questioned. Before asking for refund, they will have to prove under the provisions of rules & regulations, while in RTI process, he may merely be wasting time up to the level of CIC, when he is ignorant about the rules of departmental inquiry, while the departmental authorities can twist the information by concealign the provisions of rules.

MORE SO, THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT AUTHORISED TO INVOKE ANY SECTION OF ANY ACT, MAY THAT BE PAD ACT, DIRECTLY ON ANY PERSON. THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO TAKE ROUTE OF THE COURT OF LAW BY FILING A SUIT AGAINST THE FAMILY PENSIONER OR ANY OTHER HEIR OF THE DECEASED.

Hope, you are satisfied with the above clarification.

However, the querist has to apply his own mind before deciding to chose, which method for solution to his problem. 

1.They can simply say, the rules are available in departmental publication, which are available in the open market or website

If it is that must easy, they must have provided such link.  On one hand you state that there is no rule for recovery from dependants on the other hand you are stating that there is such a rule .  Now that PIO is having obligation, let him speak and then respond.

May I mention that this information under RTI falls under Life or Liberty clause, as such both PIO and FAA must provide the information within 48 hours  including those specific reason for such quasi judicial decision under RTI Act.  These cases are also given priority and if followed the entire flow may not take more than two months.

As you have raised in the past about judicial delay, one has to study the parties level, a Public Authority and dependents not even having received even pension.  Level playing field is important.

Ofcourse, that option should be final if parties can afford.  I am simply surprised what is happening to those well established Unions that are collecting huge subscripttttions and spending crores of rupees only for such conferences .

I am not sure as to whether Fundamental Rights can be roped somewhere in this issue, as their sustenance is involed,  since 17 years they are taking law into their hands.

The Department has already informed the querist that the recovery is sought under the PAD Act. This Act enables recovery under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act. As such, the estate, if any, of the deceased is considered to be liable. However, it is a moot question whether the recovery is justified in the instant case. This issue, if the Department is insistant, a Court of Law alone can decide.

It is also not clear how this amount has been worked out, of which the querist has not taken us into confidence. Every public servant handling cash and valuables is required to execute a fidelity bond. And certainly, the the loss allegedly caused by the deceased employee should have been, at lease partly covered by the fidelity bond.

Any how, the amount of death gratuity is not the estate of the deceased and hence not liable.

In my considered opinion, the focus and priority, for the present should be in getting the outstanding amount of DCGG with interest.

Once the dept., gives more clarity on exact reasons, member can seek alternatives .

Probably Mr. GLN Prasad may like to lend his helping hand to the querist in seeking the right information from the department within 48 hours under Life or Liberty clause.

Whatever that is possible that can be done, was provided, now it is upto the member to bring a logical conclusion to the issue by filing second appeal.  For 17 years he has been seeking some of guidance no body could extend any helping hand.  

Originally posted by : G.L.N. Prasad
	Whatever that is possible that can be done, was provided, now it is upto the member to bring a logical conclusion to the issue by filing second appeal.  For 17 years he has been seeking some of guidance no body could extend any helping hand.

Do you mean to say that 17 years have passed after he became member of the LCI since 13 June 2017 and nobody out of the LCI members could extend any helping hand to him?

The presumption is not of LCI guidance, but on various attempts made for all the seventeen years from their own sources, as they can not remain silent, with such disturbing thoughts.  The delay is also one reason, why the files are not being readily available for providing information when solicited.

I am not much aware of the legal position, as to how for a period of 17 years, dept has not made efforts to trace the assets if any by the delinquent employee for such recovery, and whether that amount is still outstanding in their books, and the limitation period if any for recovery of such amounts after 17 years.

The focus must be on resolving the issue atleast now and not to distract attention on other issues that may not  be any help to member.  Only experts can guide on such limitation period for recovery after seventeen years and how considers this 17 years delay vis a vis the correspondence made by dependents with the dept.,  The concerns is more on whether such records are still preserved or weeded out after 17 years.

Originally posted by : G.L.N. Prasad
	The presumption is not of LCI guidance, but on various attempts made for all the seventeen years from their own sources, as they can not remain silent, with such disturbing thoughts.  The delay is also one reason, why the files are not being readily available for providing information when solicited. I am not much aware of the legal position, as to how for a period of 17 years, dept has not made efforts to trace the assets if any by the delinquent employee for such recovery, and whether that amount is still outstanding in their books, and the limitation period if any for recovery of such amounts after 17 years. The focus must be on resolving the issue atleast now and not to distract attention on other issues that may not  be any help to member.  Only experts can guide on such limitation period for recovery after seventeen years and how considers this 17 years delay vis a vis the correspondence made by dependents with the dept.,  The concerns is more on whether such records are still preserved or weeded out after 17 years.

Any relevance or presumption without any descripttion by the querist?

Before basing your replies on any presumption, at least you could have asked the querist, whether his father personally made fraud or was involved in some other's fraud and the nature of fraud also.

Originally posted by : Brajendra Sharma
	Public account default

Mr. Brajendra Sharma,

For the information of the member, please discuss in brief the nature of the fraud whether your father was personally involved in fraud or in fraud of his colleagues, subbordinates or public men?

Please remember, without discussing the background of the case, you are just inviting presumption based responses from the members to add more towards your own confusion.

Please don't be miser in discussing the background if you really want some ruling based solution, in stead of hit and trial or assumption based responses.

SIR IN 1996-1997 CAROR RS KISAN VIKAS PATRA WAS STOLEN FROM BALIA SAHATWAR, A PERSON AFTER FILLING THESE KISAN VIKAS PATRA WITH ALL FORMALITY  HE WAS TAKING MONEY FROM POST OFFICES THIS WAS ALL INDIA CASE, RS 7,00,000 LACS PAYMENT WERE MADE TO HIM FROM BINDKI POST OFFICE,ON BEHALF OF POST MASTER BINDKI MY MADE PAYMENT, SO THE SHARE OF 375000 IS ASKING POST OFFICE FROM US AS PER MY KNOWLEDGE.ONLY FOR THAT DAY MY FATHER WAS APPOINTED ON THAT SEAT BY POST MASTER BINDKI BEACUSE HIS COLLEGUE WAS ON LEAVE.