Learning from Fraud-1

Learning from Fraud-1

Case of Suspension:

An employee who was working as cashier at Market Committee at Rampur, was suspended by the authorities due to an allegation that lacs of rupees credited in cash book as receipt, had not been deposited into the bank account of the market committee. The amount not deposited was pointed out as embezzlement in the audit by the auditors after the completion of the financial year.

Appointing Inquiry Officer:

As per the service rules, an inquiry officer is appointed to investigate the matter. The employee was suspended during the inquiry because it was necessary to keep the employee away from the establishment till the charges are finally disposed off. The charge sheet was filed after one year of the suspension of the employee. For inquiry purposes, the police department was asked to investigate and accounts from the year 1986 to 1991 were taken into custody to check the relevant documents and frame the charges.

Punishment and Charges Formulation:

In such cases, whether the subsistence allowance should be provided to the employee or not. If yes, how much it can be provided? In which cases, the subsistence allowance can be increased or decreased? Whether the authorities took more time in framing the charge sheet or not? In how much time, the authorities should frame the charge sheet? What should be included in the charge-sheet?

Since it is an actual case available at casemine.com. You are requested to give your comments.

*Copyright © 2019 Dr. Lalit Kumar. All rights reserved.

Fixing Responsibility of Officers in Frauds

Fixing Responsibility of Officers in Frauds 

-Dr. Lalit Kumar Setia*

The question is still unanswered, who will be responsible if any fraud or embezzlement happens in the officer under supervision of DDO and execution of supporting staff? There are various cases already happened in Government organizations. It is good if work is done with mutual understanding and nothing happen wrong; but if happened then it depends upon the influence of DDO over senior officers and influence of supporting staff over DDO while fixing the responsibility of the whole case. Suppose, the supporting staff try to fix the wrong pay in case of pay fixation or try not to recover advances remained unsettled or perform wrong computations in the files to pass on benefit to other persons or deducting less tax of any employee or contractor etc. The investigation decides who is at fault and to what extent. As soon as any loss is detected by way of theft / defalcation /misappropriation, the DDO requires reporting the whole case to the senior authority and also to the Finance Department and Accountant General. 

It is also required to lodge F.I.R. with the police and pursue the police for investigation under the provisions of C.R.P.C. 409, 468, 420, and 120B. The section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also throw the light upon the whole procedure required to be adopted. 

The Financial Rules of Government also guide the DDO to take actions as per the law and act. Thereafter, the negligence of duties is ascertained and disciplinary proceedings are initiated apart from lodging F.I.R. in terms of classification, control, punishment and appeal rules.

*Copyright © 2018 Dr. Lalit Kumar. All rights reserved. 

You may also like:
1. https://drlalitsetia.blogspot.com/