B-163279, AUG 9, 1971

B-163279, AUG 9, 1971

RELIEF FROM LIABILITY - POSTMASTER AFFIRMING PRIOR DECISION B-163279, APRIL 14, 1971, WHICH DENIED RELIEF TO CLAIMANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $129.83 REPRESENTING A SHORTAGE IN HIS ACCOUNT AS A POSTMASTER. WHILE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SHORTAGE COULD HAVE RESULTED, IN PART, FROM A MALFUNCTIONING ADDING MACHINE, CLAIMANT HAS NOT CARRIED THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE DEFICIENCY OF FUNDS UNDER HIS CONTROL WAS CAUSED SOLELY BY OTHER THAN HIS NEGLIGENCE.

TO MR. LOUIS J. O'CONNELL:

YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 20, 1971, REQUESTS FURTHER RECONSIDERATION OF OUR PREVIOUS DENIAL OF RELIEF TO YOU IN THE AMOUNT OF $129.83, REPRESENTING THE SHORTAGE IN YOUR ACCOUNT ALLEGEDLY DUE TO THE MALFUNCTIONING OF AN ADDING MACHINE.

THE FACTS IN THIS MATTER ARE SET FORTH IN DETAIL IN OUR DECISION OF APRIL 14, 1971, B-163279, TO YOU, AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. FROM YOUR PRESENT LETTER, IT APPEARS THAT BOTH OUR OFFICE AND THE ATLANTA POSTAL DATA CENTER WERE IN ERROR AS TO THE EXTENT OF USE OF THE ADDING MACHINE IN QUESTION, AND THAT ITS MALFUNCTION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETECTED DURING THE ACCOUNTING VERIFICATION OF DAILY CASH RECEIPTS, SINCE SUCH MACHINE WAS NOT USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

NEVERTHELESS, AS WAS STATED IN OUR DECISION OF APRIL 14, 1971, B 163279, IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT IN ORDER TO BE RELIEVED OF LIABILITY FOR A DEFICIENCY OF FUNDS UNDER HIS CONTROL AN ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER HAS THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT SUCH DEFICIENCY WAS CAUSED BY OTHER THAN HIS NEGLIGENCE, AND THAT THE MERE FACT OF AN UNEXPLAINED SHORTAGE IS, IN ITSELF, SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE AND, HENCE, THE CLERKS INVOLVED MUST OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE LOSS WAS CAUSED BY THEIR NEGLIGENCE.

THERE IS STILL NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE LOSS HERE IN QUESTION WAS DUE SOLELY TO THE MALFUNCTIONING OF THE ADDING MACHINE. IT IS CLEAR THAT SUCH A SHORTAGE COULD BE THE RESULT OF ANY ONE OR MORE OF A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CAUSES, SUCH AS GIVING INCORRECT CHANGE TO A PATRON, GIVING TOO MANY STAMPS TO A PATRON, ETC. THE RECORD SHOWS ONLY ONE KNOWN INSTANCE OF MALFUNCTION OF THE MACHINE, AND THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE HOW LONG BEFORE THAT INSTANCE IT MAY HAVE MALFUNCTIONED, OR THAT THE SHORTAGE AROSE SOLELY THEREFROM. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT APPEARS CERTAIN THAT THE SHORTAGE DID NOT ARISE SOLELY FROM THE MACHINE MALFUNCTION. THE MALFUNCTION CONSISTED OF THE MACHINE RENDERING TOTALS WHICH WERE ONE DOLLAR SHORT. IF SUCH MALFUNCTION WERE THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE SHORTAGE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE SHORTAGE MUST BE IN DOLLARS ONLY, WHEREAS THE SHORTAGE IS $129.83. THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT, EVEN THOUGH SOME UNKNOWN PART OF THE SHORTAGE MAY BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE MACHINE MALFUNCTION, PART OF IT MUST BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO OTHER CAUSES ALSO.

IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE CLEARLY INDICATING THAT THE SHORTAGE, OR A SPECIFIC PORTION THEREOF, IS SOLELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE MALFUNCTIONING OF THE ADDING MACHINE, OUR PRIOR DECISIONS IN THIS MATTER MUST BE CONFIRMED, AND RELIEF MUST AGAIN BE DENIED.