The unentered letter and the missing despatch number
At the 220 kV substation office of a transmission company you are the clerk who maintains the inward and outward registers. On 3 February you find that a registered letter from the Chief Engineer's office, dated 20 January, was received on 24 January but was never entered in the inward register; the dak peon says he handed it to a clerk who then took two days' casual leave. The letter asks for certain figures 'within seven days of receipt', so the deadline expired on 31 January. Separately, outward despatch number 214 is missing: the number was taken from the serially numbered book, but no office copy of any letter exists. Office instructions require inward dak to be stamped, entered and acknowledged on the day of receipt, and outward numbers to run serially with no unexplained gaps. The Assistant Engineer tells you to set the record straight but warns you not to write a false date anywhere. The letter also mentions an earlier reminder that is not traceable on the file.
1. List, in order, the steps you would take on 3 February to regularise the inward letter, and state exactly what you would write in the remarks column.
Read the worked answer
- Leave the sender's date and the postal date untouched. The envelope stamp (24 January) is independent evidence; altering it would contradict the registry and the sender's acknowledgement.
- Stamp the letter as received in office today, and on the letter write: 'Received 24.01 - entered in inward register on 03.02 due to clerk's casual leave; delay condoned by AE'.
- Allot the next unused inward number (for example 317). If the register has separate 'date of receipt' and 'date of entry' columns, write 24.01 and 03.02 respectively. If it has only one date column, write the actual receipt date 24.01 and explain the late entry in the remarks column.
- Remarks column entry: 'Late entry - dak handed over to Shri ____ on 24.01; clerk on C.L. 25–26.01; entry missed; verified with dak peon and AE; letter put up to branch on 03.02.' Obtain the peon's signature and the AE's countersignature.
- Put up the letter the same day to the branch concerned with a note that the seven-day period ended on 31.01, so the reply must go as 'most immediate'.
2. How would you deal with the expired seven-day deadline and the missing outward number 214? State what you would record and whom you would inform.
Read the worked answer
Expired deadline. The reply cannot be made timely by writing a convenient date. Send the information immediately with a covering letter that states the actual date of receipt (24.01) and the reason for the delay, and request that the delay be condoned. Telephone or email the Chief Engineer's section the same day and record the intimation (date, time, person spoken to) on the file. A truthful, prompt reply with an explanation is defensible; a backdated one is not, because the registered-letter receipt and the postal stamp will contradict it.
Outward number 214. First search: the despatch book carbon, the peon book, the email sent-items folder and the addressee's file copy. Two outcomes follow.
- If the letter was actually issued, attach a certified copy and note 'copy traced and placed on file'.
- If no letter was issued, record in the register against 214: 'No.214 cancelled - no letter issued - AE's approval dated ____', keep the number unused (do not renumber 215 as 214), and place a signed cancellation note on the file.
An unexplained serial gap is an audit objection; a cancelled number with a signed note is not. Inform the Assistant Engineer in writing in both cases.
3. Suggest two control measures for the section, and explain why backdating the entry would have been the wrong fix.
Read the worked answer
Control measures.
- A daily register check: the inward/outward registers to be tallied against the dak book and despatch book before close of work by a second clerk, with a one-line initialled certificate at the foot of the day's entries.
- A handover protocol for leave: any dak in hand to be handed over in writing to a named clerk before proceeding on leave, and the despatch book to use a carbon-copy or duplicate-numbered format so that no number can be torn out unnoticed.
Why not backdate. Backdating would create a false public record: it would conflict with the postal registration date, the sender's acknowledgement and the peon book, so the discrepancy would surface at audit and become a misconduct issue under the conduct rules rather than a clerical lapse. It would also destroy the only reliable evidence of how long the letter actually waited, which is exactly the information the branch needs to judge whether the delay affected the reply. The loss of seven days cannot be undone by a date; it can only be explained, and the explanation must be honest.