FCI Officers Association

A forum of Officers of Food Corporation of India (Best viewed in Firefox)


    Injustice done to Manager (D) by involving in storage loss since the year 2005 onward

    Share

    rks_81jld

    Posts : 14

    Injustice done to Manager (D) by involving in storage loss since the year 2005 onward

    Post by rks_81jld on Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:29 pm

    I want to draw the members attention to a circular issued during the year 2005 by Sh T.C. Gupta, then GM (Punjab), wherein he directed to involve the Manager (D) in all cases of abnormal storage losses. Whereas earlier, the Manager (D)s ware not involved as they ware not the custodians of stocks.
    Now, a great injustice is being done to them and they are being involved in all cases of storage losses simply because they are Supervisory Officers at the time of issue of stocks. I want to know why this draconian circular was not challenged by FCI OFFICERS ASSOCIATION ? I have been involved in many such cases without any fault on my part.

    I want to ask Manager (D)s posted in other states to kindly enlighten me their position/involvement as regard to storage losses. Here, in Punjab Region, the names of AM (D)S were not involved at all before the year 2005, i.e. before the circular issued by Sh. T.C. Gupta GM (PB).


    Last edited by rks_81jld on Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:06 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : matter resolved)

    Swarup

    Posts : 11

    Re: Injustice done to Manager (D) by involving in storage loss since the year 2005 onward

    Post by Swarup on Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:50 am

    rks_81jld wrote:...they are being involved in all cases of storage losses simply because they are Supervisory Officers at the time of issue of stocks.

    If the Manager (D) is being involved only because he is the Supervisory Officers, the same analogy is true for Area Manager, GM, ED or even CMD, since all are supervisory officers in their respective spheres.

    Actually, the question is responsibility Vs accountability. Custodian of stock is responsible for its loss, but suporvisory officers are also accountable for such losses.

    However, whether, officers holding accountability can be involved autamatically in all such cases....is a debatable question. May be our learned members of the group can throw some light on the matter.

    rks_81jld

    Posts : 14

    Re: Injustice done to Manager (D) by involving in storage loss since the year 2005 onward

    Post by rks_81jld on Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:00 pm

    Thank you, Sawarup for paying attention to my post and requesting our learned members to reflect upon such an important issue as here in Punjab Region the involvement of the Manager (D) in storage loss or gain in wheat has become a demoralising factor for a Manager (D). Earlier before the issue of the said circular by Sh. T. C. Gupta,the then SRM (PB), the Manager (D)s were not involved in abnormal storage losses or less gain but since then onward, we have been involved regularly. For example, I have been penalized in a case where i joined as Assistant Manager (D) in the depot on November, 2003. There, in open plinth, the damaged wheat stocks (crop year 2000-01) were lying. The DCC was conducted before my joining and names of the defaulters were mentioned in the DCC Report as the stockes were exposed to heavy rains during July 2000 and there was abnormal delay in turnover/segregation in subsequently and the stocks were finally got downgraded and declared damaged well before my joining in November, 2003. On my joining, I highlighted the matter and wrote a letter to the Area Manager to expedite the process of disposal of stocks to liquidate the stocks to save the expenses being incurred on the upkeep, security and rent charges of the plinth. The stocks were auctioned in Jan. 2004 and so the stocks were issued in the month of March,2004 and April, 2004. The storage loss statements were sent by us mentioning the names of the defulters as given in the DCC Report and the names of the Technical staff were given as per the Investigation Report conducted by the Area Manager. My name was not mentioned in the defaulters.
    The case for the month of March, 2004 was processed before the issue of said circular by Sh. T. C. Gupta. and in this case, both the depot staff (including the Assistant Manager (D), AM (QC) and Depot & QC Staff as mentioned in the DCC Report and the investigation report) who were responsible for the receipt and the delay in turnover/segregation of said stocks were chargesheeted under Major Penatly and were penalized. But, surprisingly, when the case of April, 2004 came under consideration during the year 2006, the said circular came in operation. And so, the RO (PB) asked for the names of Manager (D) present at the time of issue. And so I was involved under Major enquiry and penalized simply because I was posted as one of the two Assistant Manager (D) at the time of issue. The Inquiry Officer did not pay attention to my joining in November, 2003 and the efforts made by me to save the interests of FCI and he failed to point out any specfic negligence on my part but deemed me equally responsible only because I was a Supervisory Officer at the time of issue of stocks.
    It is informed that the stocks were issued in the presence of a committee of four officers including we two AM (D)s+AM (QC)+AM (A/c) and the stackwise details of stocks issued and storage losses declared were signed by all of us. Further, the stocks were issued by deputing all the depot staff posted in the depot at the time of issue but, only the names of Manager (D)s were asked for and were penalized. Whereas all the depot staff who were involved in issue of said stocks and the AM (QC) were completely spared.
    The injustice is that there was no fault on my part and I acted with full care and due devotion to save the interests of Corporation and Inquiry Officer failed to pinpoint any fault on my part, a heavy penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect plus a recovery of one lac from my salary was imposed.[/b][/b]


    Last edited by rks_81jld on Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

    ranifci

    Posts : 2

    Re: Injustice done to Manager (D) by involving in storage loss since the year 2005 onward

    Post by ranifci on Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:41 pm

    Did you go for appeal?

    rks_81jld

    Posts : 14

    Re: Injustice done to Manager (D) by involving in storage loss since the year 2005 onward

    Post by rks_81jld on Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:35 pm

    Thanks for paying attention. Yes. my appeal is pending with CMD.

    Swarup

    Posts : 11

    Re: Injustice done to Manager (D) by involving in storage loss since the year 2005 onward

    Post by Swarup on Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:08 am

    Your case seems to be just another case of victimisation, as stated by you. However, the broader question remains whether, such kind of circular, as quoted by you, is tenable to the laws of the nation.
    If yes, you have to justify your case on your own. But if no, I think our Association should definitely play a role to take up such matters with the management not on behalf of a single individual but in view of providing natural justice to all officers as a whole.
    avatar
    bawa_harbans

    Posts : 3

    Re: Injustice done to Manager (D) by involving in storage loss since the year 2005 onward

    Post by bawa_harbans on Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:25 pm

    Sangha Sahib I am sorry to say that this type of victimization was also prevalent before the circular of our worthy ex General Manager Sh. TC Gupta. previous to my posting in Chandigarh I was posted in Ludhiana and the Storage Loss section at Ludhiana don't accept the SLS without the name of Manager (D). And, once your name is written on the body of SLS and your bio data is sent along with it, you are bound to be charge sheeted if the Loss is beyond the so called prescribed limit. I have faced the recovery like this prior to joining of Sh. TC Gupta. Hence, you are wrong that Managers were framed after the circular of Sh. TC Gupta. I am an example that I was framed and faced the recovery prior to this circular. OK have a nice day

    rks_81jld

    Posts : 14

    Re: Injustice done to Manager (D) by involving in storage loss since the year 2005 onward

    Post by rks_81jld on Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:24 pm

    Thanks, Mr. Bawa. Actually, I want the learned members to ponder over this issue. I know that if the name is mentioned on body of SLS, the person concerned will be penalized despite his innocense. But, the said circular by Sh. T. C. Gupta have made the Manager (D) responsible for the losses/gains in the depot despite the fact that he is not the custodian of stocks. Whereas a custodian is responsible for loss/gain in his shed, the Manger (D) is responsible for all the sheds in the depot. And he is not the physical custodian of stocks. The said circular has not only blurred the distinction between a Manager (D) and physical custodian of stocks, it has made the position of Manager (D) pitiable. Sometimes, in some situations, only the Manager (D) is held responsible for the losses/gains despite the fact that the stocks were issued by involving all the staff members and the Manager (QC) posted in the depot at the time of issue and the Manager (A/c) from District Office as happenned with me in the case referred by me in post # 2 above. Only the names of Manger (D)s posted at the time of issue were asked and penalized whereas the stocks were loaded into specials by deputing all the AG I/II/III and watch & ward staff and FCI DPS (Direct Payment System) labourers. Further, the IO and the DA ignored my defence and held me responsible simply because I was posted as one of the two Manager(D)s in the depot at the time of issue. And this is not a story of a single individual, this is happenning with every Manager (D) in Punjab now. Thats why I want to know the position of Manager (D)s in other regions. Is the Manager (D) is held responsible the same way as in Punjab ?
    avatar
    bawa_harbans

    Posts : 3

    Re: Injustice done to Manager (D) by involving in storage loss since the year 2005 onward

    Post by bawa_harbans on Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:10 pm

    you are very right Sangha Sahib, I fully agree with you that the position of Manager (D) is pitiable. But, because we all are on the verge of retirement our attitude towards these atrocities is very very lackadaisical. I think I have six more months to go and you think you have one year to go and so on.I know a plenty of our brethren who never bother about all these things, BUT OTHER THINGS.These people have never worked sincerely and are being guided by their subordinates, what to talk of guiding their subordinates. I know a lot who can not read a letter what to talk of replying the same. This is the only reason that we are being punished for no fault of ours. Please do not compare yourself with these dumb animals.I think you will agree with me. please so not mind and forgive me, if I am wrong. I think it is OK for now and Namaskar

    mohersingh

    Posts : 1

    Re: Injustice done to Manager (D) by involving in storage loss since the year 2005 onward

    Post by mohersingh on Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:26 pm

    AS PER CIRCULAR OF 8 FEB 2008 THERE IS NO CHARGE SHEET /RECOVERY MADE WHEN EVER NO THEFT/PILFERAGE/MALAFIED INTENSION BE PROVED

    taksh

    Posts : 2

    Re: Injustice done to Manager (D) by involving in storage loss since the year 2005 onward

    Post by taksh on Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:16 pm

    Is there any occasion when any recovery has been made from Area Managers or GMs for abnormal storage losses? Why only Managers (Depot)are charge sheeted and penalized for supervisory lapses.I have visited a Depot of 50000 MT where Area Manager had not Visited since six months and No body had visited from RO since one year. A heavy shortage was detected during Inspection. But action was taken only against the Depot staff including Manager (D). If the Deopt would had been visited by the RO/DO concerned regularly than such heavy shortage could had been avoided.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Injustice done to Manager (D) by involving in storage loss since the year 2005 onward

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:37 am