FINALISATION
OF C OF I / L/S
It is seen that the time taken for
finalisation of MT accidental case C of I/ L/S is too high due to various
mistakes from different levels. Due to this unexpected delay on finalisation of
C of I /L/S, the effected veh/eqpt/ plants are unable to deposit to supply
company for auction sale. Due to the delay of finalisation of C of I / L/S is
lead to deterioration of them on ground, thus never gain even face value since
it will not lifted on auction. The final result is further deterioration of the
item and same eaten by the sand. If so, that will be the grate loss to the
NATION.
To avoid this type of losses to the Nation,
the following are suggested:-
a)
|
The
higher authority may take a decision to change the present policy on deposition
of accidental class DEE veh/eqpt/plants to
supply company before according to Adm sanction. Such as a “Provisional Adm Sanction” or any other means. (It is under stood that the Veh/
epqt can’t be utilised more and want to be sale on auction. Then why it is
not included in an auction catalogue before its deterioration. ?) For eg:
Tata 407 BA No 98C-18731 sentenced Class DEE, after an
accident on 2000 at 41595 Kms. (1353 GE loc) Due to one and other reasons its Adm sanction not
received till May 2013. This veh lying very bad
condition on its deterioration during last long 13 years. (But it is very difficult to light on this suggestion)
(The higher authorities are requested to look in
to this matter please.)
|
b)
|
The
second thing is to carry out the correct procedure and prepare documents with
care to finalise the court of inquiry and loss statement in a speedy manner.
So that the case may clear within two or maximum three years. In view of this, a policy circulated vide HQ
DGBR letter No: 51601/Policy/C of I/55/DGBR/E4Rep dated 04 Apr 2012 is
attached here, for guide line while preparing of C of I and L/S in connection
with accidental cases please.In this connection, please also refer HQ DGBR letter No: 51601/Policy/C of I/ 01/DGBR/E4 Rep dated 29- 01-2015.
|
HQ
DGBR
51601/Policy/C
of I/55/DGBR/E4Rep 04 Apr 2012.
(To all)
Observations
Discrepancies in C of I proceedings Loss statement: MT Accident cases.
1. A large number of court of Inquiries
and Loss statements are preceded from Projects to this Dte. It has been seen
that invariably there is unjustable delay in this cases which defeats the very
purpose of timely finalisation of such sensitive case. It is pertinent to
mention that due to those abnormal delays.
Documentation and compesations as also punishment may be unduly delayed causing
hardship to individuals involved.
2. The line schedule for processing of C of I /Loss statements has
been laid down vide this Dte letter No 17001/P/DGBR/01/E1E dated 12 July 2006.
Abnormal delay needs to be justified with “Justifiable” reasons and merely
proceedings with Task Force for up to one year are surely not “Justifiable”
reason.
COURT OF INQUIRY
3. Convening
Order: It is observed with concern that in the majority of cases than
is a delay of two of three months in issue of Convening Order by the convening
authority. It is unacceptable and this delay needs to be reduced to maximum to two
weeks. Also the term of reference of court of Inquiry need to be
explicit and cover all aspects on the subject.
4. Lack of application: Most court of inquiry are done as a routine and appear
to progress with the aim completing the clerical/ adm requirement rather than
taking the Court of Inquiry to its logical conclusion.
5. Such lack of application by Court of
Inquiry indirectly leads to rising of observations by various levels
subsequently and avoidable delay. This results in delay, defeating the very
purpose for which the Court of Inquiry had initially rushed things.
6. The various other oversights which
will reduce the processing timings as under:-
a)
|
Manuscript copy and typed copies contains many over writings/
spelling mistakes.
|
b)
|
In some cases, typed copies do not tally with manuscript/
original copy.
|
c)
|
Each page of proceedings, do not bear the initial of the
Proceeding Officer.
|
d)
|
Documents attached
with the proceedings are not fount authenticated/ attested by Board of
Officers/ Officer.
|
e)
|
Proceeding must be paginated properly
and all enclosures/ exhibits must be linked with the proceedings.
|
f)
|
Index/check list be placed on the top
of proceedings.
|
g)
|
Each set of
proceedings be stitches separately and should contain all connected papers
|
7. A large number of documents which from
part of court of inquiry are invariably incomplete or not been completed
properly, leading of observations and result delay:-
a)
|
FIR & Final Police Investigation
Report:-
|
||
i)
|
Irrespective
of all cases of Loss Statement / MT accident, FIR must be lodged with nearby
police Station.
|
||
ii)
|
Final
police investigation report on the FIR lodged must be obtained from police
station and enclosed with the proceedings. Police
statement that the matter is still under
investigation will not serve any purpose. It must contain the
reason on MT accident/ cause of loss with details of calprits, if any.
|
||
b)
|
Statement of case/ Recommendations:-
|
||
i)
|
The statement of case
and recommendations of all in channel must contain the full fact of the
incident, clearly indicating reasons
of accident, person responsible if any, details of compensations paid/ to be
paid, details of MACT/court case, Amount of loss to be regularised including
connect authority. / BR regulations Para, details of action taken on the
order of DGBR (applicable while recommending regularisation of loss.)
|
||
ii)
|
When
there is a different opinion on findings / recommendations of court of
inquiry/ board of officers and the chain of command, it must be clearly
indicated in the recommendation with proper justification.
|
||
iii)
|
Statement
of case/ recommendations must contains the action by the project/ lower
formation on the remedial measures suggested by the court of inquiry/ board
of officers and enclose copy of the
same with the proceedings.
|
||
iv)
|
When
the loss “not due to Theft, Fraud or Neglect” and
to be regularised under the delegated financial power of DGBR/ADGBR, Para
1061 of BR regulation may be applied. When the loss ‘due to Theft, Fraud or Neglect’ and to be regularised under
the delegated financial power of DGBR/ ADGBR, Para 1063 of BR regulation may
be applied. And when
the loss is to be regularised by the Govt of India / BRDB, Para 1079 of BR
regulations may be applied in the recommendations of all in channel in both
type of losses.
|
||
LOSS STATEMENTS:
8. Once the court of inquiry is completed, the documents are sent back
for initiation of Loss statement. Subsequently the loss statements received in
this HQ after a gap of almost one to two years which is incomprehensible by all
standards. There have been when the delay has gone up to even three or more
years.
9. The activity of preparation of loss
statement can easily be initiated on a tentative basis after the CE Project has
given recommendation of the court of inquiry.
10. The main observations of loss statement are
highlighted for a reference.
a)
|
Loss /cost of repair should be
calculated as per this Dte L/No : 55014/ Policy/ DGBR/E4 Tech dated 13/18 Sep
1989 as amended vide 55014/ Policy/ DGBR/E4 Tech dated 12 Oct 1989,
55014/Policy/146/E4 Tech dated 01 Jul 1999 and 55014/Policy/ DGBR/20/E4 Tech
dated 22 Aug 2005.
|
b)
|
Loss statement and calculation sheets
must be verified by audit authorities.
|
c)
|
Court of Inquiry (BOO must) sign the
calculation sheets.
|
d)
|
When the loss is due to Theft, Fraud or
Neglect, 8.5% additional charges be added to the total loss as per Para 1068
(a) of BR Regulations.
|
e)
|
Loss statement attached with the
proceedings should bear the endorsement from OC unit, Commander Task Force
and CE Project.
|
f)
|
Nature of loss, ie loss due to or not
due to theft, fraud or neglect must be shown on the top of the Loss
statement.
|
Other important issues
11. A very large number of observation
raised by BRDB, IFA (BR) & PCDA (BR) are addressed to by this HQ rather
than moving the file downwards. A similar approach needs to be adopted by HQs
at various levels.
12. It is evident that HQs at various levels
view the court of inquiry/ loss statement as are more “avoidable paper work”
and process it accordingly. The approach proves counterproductive and generates
more paper work. Proper application will lead to
faster processing and early finalisation of court of inquiry /loss statements.
13. This letter may please be put up to
Chief Engineer.
Sd/ xxx
(Sanjay Gangwar)
Col
Dir/ E4 Repair
For DGBR
No comments:
Post a Comment