Termination Of A Officer Employee (Under Probation) - CiteHR
Gopinath Varahamurthi
Mindhour Partner, Ass.professor/adm. Officer,
Generalist Hr
+1 Other

Cite.Co is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors sharing their experience and insights.
Join Us and help by adding your inputs. Contributions From Other Members Follow Below...
This is a case of a Public Sector Bank in India
An officer employee has joined the Bank. Later it is found that the officer has suppressed the facts while joining the Bank. Actually, the officer was working with another Public Sector Bank and he has not been relieved from the earlier Bank, the said fact was not mentioned by the officer at the time of joining our Bank.
Now, we have to issue a show cause notice to the officer, as to why the appointment should not be terminated (as per the clause mentioned in the appointment letter).
Question here arises that, who will be the competent authority to issue the show cause notice and terminate the officer.
If any court verdict is there kindly share the same.

Normally, the appointing authority should sign the show cause notice. However, a lower rank officer can also do the same. The final termination order MUST be signed by the appointing authority.
The Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, as may be applicable to the bank, will describe the procedure in dealing with the disciplinary matters.

The appointing authority is competent to take disciplinary action and he may delegate this function to a subordinate officer also. In banks in public sector, the Officers (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations contain a schedule which enumerates the list of officers who are competent to take disciplinary action against the delinquent officers, depending up on the pay scale of the officer concerned.Normally the competent authorities located in Controlling Offices like the Regional offices/zonal offices or corporate offices will have jurisdiction over the officers working under their jurisdiction.Please go through the schedule of your bank.
HR & IR Advisor

Thanks for your reply.
We are of the view to terminate the employee summarily (by issuing a show cause letter) for misrepresenting the facts at the time of joining the services.We are not going to issue any charge sheet, hence there will be no role of the Disciplinary Authority and hence the Discipline & Appeal Regulation would also not play any role here.

when you want to terminate an officer employee for suppression of information relating to his past employment, you are making an allegation against the officer employee, questioning his integrity and honesty and therefore he shall be given an opportunity of being heard in respect of the allegation, made against him as per the requirement of the principles of natural justice and accordingly he shall be served with a show-cause notice, calling for his explanation in respect of the allegations and if the same is not satisfactory, he shall be served with a charge-sheet spelling out the charges and a departmental inquiry shall be conducted into such charges as per the procedure laid down under the disciplinary rules of the bank and an appropriate penalty shall be passed only if he is found guilty of the charges.If he is summarily terminated for suppression of vital information at the time of his employment, such terminations are likely to be termed as punitive but not simple and plain and are likely to be set aside by the courts, if the employee challenges them in the appropriate court.This is my view.


HR & IR Advisor

As per my knowledge employe having right to explain his position regarding suppression of fact after show cause notice.In PSB some banks not even gives NOC while applying to other bank jobs moreover employee get step treatment sometime by senior executives. There can be many reasons beyond his reach which may compelled him to do so.May current bank would ask NOC or relieving letter from previous employer which he may not able to get from previous bank.He can challenge such termination in court where court can keep it aside on aforesaid groud.I am bank employee and have came across such candidates where we have to listen employee and understand him.
As anonymous said, a candidate/employee might have done every thing right like giving notice or paying notice pay to the former employer, submitting resignation and proper handing over of charge etc, yet he might be denied a relieving letter by the employer to vent his anger at his leaving and the candidate for fearing of loosing a public sector job might have suppressed the fact of his previous employment or he might have been unemployed at the time of applying for bank's job and might have indicated his employment status to be so in his application but subsequently got employed and might have felt not necessary to reveal his employment status Such causes might be innocuous and may not be serious enough to cost him a job or there may be something more serious that he wants to hide.Therefore it is necessary to collect the facts and hear the employee concerned so as to enable the competent authority to take a prudent decision in the matter.What needs to be looked into is not only the fact of suppression of information but also whether the information so suppressed is such that he cannot be continued in service Probably the courts will go into such questions.


HR & IR Advisor

The competent authority is the functionary to terminate the services of the probationer. However, in the instant case, the probationer seems to have been given resignation and the other bank has not relieved from the services. This is the failure of the other bank and not the employee. Secondly, the letter in content have no value if the other bank fails to take appropriate action against the employee within the proscribed time and this is the asset for the employee to state that it is not necessary to convey to the present employing bank. Since, the time elapse is the crucial benefit to the employee. When the services of the employee is good and to the level best there is no necessary to harass the employee saying the another bank employment issue. Suppression/hidden facts should not stand between the present employee and employer. Unless criminal issues attributed such strong action is appreciated.
best of luck..

This discussion thread is closed. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post it on the network.
Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.

About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™