SOP for eFRM Alerts Verification

ile/Reference No.: 17-14/FRMU/2024-Inv I/364789/2026
Subject: Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for eFRM Alerts Verification Process

1. Purpose of the SOP

The SOP provides field-level guidance for the verification and effective management of eFRM alerts. It enables designated officials to examine alerts thoroughly and supports proactive vigilance.

The verification process is not exhaustive or exclusive. Officers may use their own knowledge, experience and appropriate verification methods. The Operational Guide on eFRM in APT 2.0 issued by CEPT may also be referred to for the alert workflow and module operations.

2. eFRM Alerts

The eFRM module generates alerts based on scenarios and dynamic parameters approved by the Functional Divisions of the Directorate. Alerts are assigned to the concerned Divisional Offices and classified as Operational or Vigilance alerts.

The alert scenarios/types may be modified and new vigilance alerts may be introduced under the preventive vigilance framework. 19 types of alerts are provisioned in the eFRM module as on the date of the SOP.

3. Basic Verification Responsibility

On receipt of an alert, the designated authority at the Divisional Office, Sub-Divisional Office or Head Post Office should:

• Examine the alert in detail.
• Verify the alert against relevant records and documents.
• Check system-generated reports and other supporting evidence.
• Conduct physical verification/office visits wherever necessary.
• Record observations and comments systematically against every alert.

4. Role of Divisional FRMU

The Divisional FRMU examines each alert and assesses its nature, severity and relevance. Based on the assessment, the alert is assigned to the concerned Head Post Office or Sub-Divisional Office for verification and follow-up.

Important: Vigilance alerts cannot be assigned to the Head Post Office through the eFRM module.

5. Role of Head Post Office

The Postmaster/Sr. PM/Deputy PM/Chief PM is responsible for detailed verification of alerts received from the Division by referring to office records, registers, documents and system-generated reports.

If no discrepancy is found:

The Postmaster may recommend closure of the alert, recording observations/comments in eFRM.

If discrepancy is found:

Where further enquiry is considered necessary, the Postmaster may recommend further investigation, with suitable observations/comments.

The verification must be completed within the prescribed timeline and the alert returned to the Divisional Office through eFRM.

6. Role of Sub-Divisional FRMU/SDO

The Sub-Divisional Head handles:

• All Vigilance alerts.
• Operational alerts requiring further investigation.

Verification may include examination of records, system reports, physical visits, contacting customers and assistance from Mail Overseers where necessary.

Possible outcomes

No discrepancy: Recommend closure of the alert.

Discrepancy/fraud/loss detected: Recommend marking the alert as “Reported Fraud” with supporting observations.

The verification must be completed within the prescribed timeline and the alert returned to the Divisional Office.

7. Action by Divisional Office after SDO Verification

After receiving the SDO's report:

• If the alert is marked “Genuine”, the Divisional Office may close it by recording additional comments.
• If marked “Reported Fraud”, the alert is marked accordingly and further action is initiated.
• The Division should direct the SDO to conduct a detailed probe, assess the extent of loss and undertake past work verification to identify similar irregularities or fraudulent transactions.
• An unsatisfactory SDO report may be returned for further investigation and submission of a revised report.

8. Monitoring and Quality Checks

The Divisional Office must:

• Assign alerts to the concerned HO/SDO on the same day of receipt.
• Ensure examination and return within prescribed timelines.
• Analyze verification remarks before closing alerts.
• Conduct a 10% random quality check of alerts closed as genuine every fortnight.

Regional/Circle FRMU should monitor alert disposal monthly, analyze pending alerts and review reported fraud cases. A 5% random quality check of alerts closed as genuine by Divisions should be conducted monthly at Regional/Circle level.

9. Prescribed Timelines

Activity	Timeline
Initial assignment by Divisional FRMU	Same day before EOD
Processing at Head Office	48 hours / 2 days
Processing at Sub-Divisional Office	72 hours / 3 days
Final closure by Divisional FRMU	Within 7 days of alert generation

 

10. Major Alert Types Covered

The SOP provides verification procedures for alerts including:

• EXC_CASH – Excess cash retained beyond approved MAB.
• TRAN_ADJ – Delay in cash remittance transit adjustment.
• BANK_REM – Multiple bank remittance transactions.
• BANK_DRW – Multiple bank drawing transactions.
• COD_NONCOD_TXN – COD article handled as non-COD.
• NO_BOOKING_INFO – Articles inducted without booking information.
• NO_CLOSE_DESPATCH_EVENT – Bags without closing/dispatch events.
• BOOKED_LOCAL_DL_OUTSIDE – Local articles delivered outside the catchment area.
• BOOKING_WITHOUT_REVENUE – Increased booking without proportionate revenue.
• PRE_PAID_TXN – Large number of postage-prepaid bookings.
• POST_SERV_MAIL – Large number of postal service article bookings.
• LVS_NOT_TKN – Officials/GDS not availing leave beyond the prescribed period.
• SUB_AS_GDS – Same outsider substitute continuously engaged against GDS vacancy.
• BNK_DRW_CHQ_CAN – Cancellation of bank drawing cheque leaves.
• COUN_TXN_CANC – Cancellation of counter transactions.
• TXN_ON_HDY – Transactions on holidays.
• PARCEL_BOOKING_ACCOUNTING – Parcel revenue/accounting-related alerts.
• FRANCHISE_BOOKED_STAMPS – Postage stamps affixed/booked by franchise.

The SOP specifies the responsible authority, verification timeline and records/documents to be checked for each alert type.

Key Takeaway

The SOP establishes a defined workflow for eFRM alert verification, from same-day assignment by the Division to examination by HO/SDO, recording of findings, closure or escalation as Reported Fraud, and subsequent monitoring through periodic quality checks. The process emphasizes timely verification, proper documentation, physical cross-checking where required, and proactive identification of fraud or systemic irregularities.