Patro the LE of ISC,
Let me tell you similar kind of my post just a little early of posting this thread got the deletion. Thank you to you and your team that allowed me to post it again. Indeed, it is a bold step.
Nice to see you have come up to defend your side of the story and it is a welcome move by you. This is what we need, hiding your face somewhere never going to solve any issue but to defend it honestly. No one is going to kill anyone if he/she just say a "sorry" for their mistake. In fact, we should come out of our "ego" and position to accept it, it only creates a good impression. It just my personal opinion and you need not agree with me.
No one blames the traffic constable or the postman, but the question arises why not the same explanations have done at that time by the postman? Then the same postman was standing tall with their counterpart to support them even if it was a wrong thing to do.
"In any organisation, every department is bound to follow a certain set of rules and they would act according to the norms."
What you say is totally correct and the fact. But, why the same rules are different for other people? Now you can't deny that there are situations when we openly found how the "tone" and "tenor" and favour or disfavour change the rules person to person. So, the rules itself is not transparent!
"You can't draw money as and when you desire without the concurrence of the competent financial authority nominated by the head of your organisation. "
Well, I never asked the postman to provide me money! I just ask to deliver my message and then it was up to the authority people if they would have given me my payment or time or not. Here too we can't arrive at the conclusion based on your presentation! After all, the postman has no authority to provide me with my money!! And, I know it.
However, When I shouted the postman on the public, he might has felt shy and immediately delivered my message to the authority people? Now, what conclusion we can come to from this?
1. He got traffic so he made delayed if we believe in this theory, it is astonishing to find that the traffic vanished once I talked to him in public?
2. In another way, we can't deny the fact that the postman was purposely delaying just to please their superior. Because the person wanted the money was not a "good" man according to them.
"You didn't mention whether you followed the prescribed norms before throwing the ball in your Accountant's court. Since you are sick and the amount is needed which you sought over a telephone simply reflects the opinion that it is a personal transaction between two individuals and the organisation is nothing to do with it unless everything is placed on record in black and white. "
Mr Petro, this is called the mistake, coming out to defend without proper "homework". The Boss of the organization, who is the boss of the same postman too. So, the Boss has told me that your payment can be done through email since I was sick there is no way I can follow the prescribed norms. The said Postman can ask the Boss to confirm this.
"Any organisation is dependent on its Accounts and Finance because they are the custodians of the public money and accountable to each and every financial transaction. They can't go by the sympathetic approach but by the authority authorizing to draw the cheque."
What You hasve said is secondary!! Without delivering my message to concern people, how can you talk about the future subject? However, It is ridiculous to find the actual mentality of authority people to talk about "sympathy" when they should have honestly tried to clear my payment most on just "moral" policy.
Mr. Patro, I see no ashamed feeling in the eyes of postman but surprise to see how he is defending a wrong work into rules and regulations.