Is It Fair to Suspend an Employee Without Inquiry for a Single Mistake? Seeking Advice on HR Practices

Dear All,

Greetings!

My heartiest wishes for DIWALI.

May God give you a lot of wonderful coming years.

I have a concern about the human resource practices in big brands.

Today, I came across a situation where I am not comfortable with my company's human resource practices.

We encountered a situation that I want to share with all of you.

In my company, an employee who has been working with us for the last 25 years made a mistake. He works in the credit department and, due to some reasons, was unable to follow up on bills worth 40 lakhs with the ministry, showing negligence in his duties.

He had a clean record in his 25 years of service.

The company had not issued a single warning letter in his name. In this incident, the company did not issue any memo but directly suspended him for 7 days (standing order of the company is for 6 days).

Furthermore, the company issued him a charge sheet, asking for an explanation within 48 hours.

My question is, was it right to suspend an employee directly for one negligence without conducting an inquiry or following other procedures?

If a person is suspended for misconduct, can we issue a charge sheet stating that the suspension will be extended, etc.?

The main issue lies with our management (General Manager), as they seem ready to dismiss an employee at a moment's notice. Our General Manager does not speak properly to employees.

If we claim that big brands have good human resource practices or state that employees are assets by providing benefits like LTA, Medicals, etc., is it accurate?

What procedure should be adopted in this case?

As a junior member, it is challenging to accept the management's decision.

In my previous post, I mentioned that my HR Manager only knows how to manage by any means necessary. She is only familiar with what happens in this company as she is a product of it.

I would appreciate it if you could suggest the correct procedure and the actions this employee can take against the management.

It is disheartening to witness situations like this where employees are suspended almost every other day, and there is no one to advocate for them as unions are management-friendly, focusing solely on their benefits. (This employee is in an Executive cadre).

I would appreciate prompt responses.

Regards,
Ranjeet

Dear Ranjeet,

Let us analyze the issue step by step.

a) "In my company, an employee who has been working with us for the last 25 years committed a mistake. He works in the credit department and, due to some reasons, he is unable to follow up on bills worth 40 lakhs with the ministry, showing negligence in his duties."

Comments: 40 lakhs is a significant amount. Why did he not follow up with the client? The reasons need to be investigated. The law does not consider the length of service of an individual.

b) "He had a clean record in his 25 years with the company. The company had not issued a single warning letter to him. In this incident, the company did not issue any memo but directly suspended him for 7 days (the Standing order of the company is for 6 days)."

Comments: The law does not consider a past clean record, especially given the severity of the mistake. It is possible that he may have been engaging in misappropriation of funds prior to this incident but was only caught now. Suspension pending inquiry is appropriate. If the accused is not suspended, there is a risk of tampering with records and evidence. To prevent this, the management has suspended him. During this period, he is eligible for a subsistence allowance.

c) "In continuation, the company issued him a charge sheet asking for an explanation within 48 hrs. My question is, was it right to suspend an employee directly for one negligence? Shouldn't we conduct an inquiry or follow other procedures first?"

Comments: Before issuing the charge sheet, the company should have conducted an inquiry. A charge sheet can be issued directly only for smaller offenses, not for an offense of this magnitude. A charge sheet comes after an inquiry, not before it.

d) "If we say that big brands have good human resource practices or claim that employees are their assets only by providing welfare like LTA, Medicals, etc., is it right?"

Comments: It is not a matter of big or small brands. Discipline is the foundation of any organization. To instill a culture of discipline, incidents like this need to be handled firmly. It sends a message to all employees about the consequences of corruption or negligence. The essence of the law lies in deterrence. Mr. Ranjeet, please note that India faces more problems due to a lack of discipline rather than a lack of intelligence or intelligent people.

Secondly, justice is also fundamental to any organization. Your management must ensure that justice is served to the accused employee and the organization.

e) "It's so painful to see things like this, where employees are suspended every second day, and there's no one to stand for them as unions are management-friendly and focus only on their benefits. (This employee is in the Executive cadre)."

Comments: Managers must think with their heads, not their hearts. The Head vs. Heart debate poses an age-old challenge for managers. Progress occurs when issues are handled dispassionately, without emotional involvement. An American employee was reportedly fired for being 43 minutes late after lunch.

The accused employee can defend himself by presenting evidence of the steps he took to recover the money, such as keeping superiors informed of his challenges. However, his culpability remains established as he withheld crucial information from his superiors. In times of recession, there is a significant capital crunch, requiring employees to make aggressive efforts to release blocked working capital.

Your management should focus on the incident rather than the individual. Investigating the incident may raise questions such as:

a) Did the employee's Manager know about this credit? What guidance did they provide?

b) Why was this issue not discussed in weekly or fortnightly credit review meetings? If it was discussed, what was the outcome?

c) How long after discovery was this credit issue brought to light? Why was it not addressed in the monthly reconciliation by the Accounts or audit department?

Answers to these questions may reveal culpability of higher officials as well. Simply punishing the employee could amount to scapegoating while allowing seniors to evade accountability.

I am not a legal expert. I have shared my opinions based on experience. However, Mr. RN Khola and Mr. JS Malik are the appropriate individuals to seek legal clarifications from.

Thanks,

Dinesh V Divekar

Mr. Divekar,

Your reply is perfectly right. The employee in question is suspended pending inquiry. He is served with a charge sheet. He has an opportunity to reply to the charge sheet and defend himself in the inquiry to be conducted subsequently. He is also entitled to subsistence allowance. In case of grave misconduct, the employer has the right to suspend an employee immediately even without giving the charge sheet. A charge sheet can be framed only after conducting a preliminary investigation to assess the extent of the omission or commission.

If the suspended employee proves his innocence in the domestic inquiry, his suspension would be revoked, and he can rejoin duty with full salary (arrears) from the date of his suspension. Discipline is a must. Financial discipline is utmost essential.

I fully agree with your view that the problems in India are due to indiscipline and not a lack of intelligence. (I may be a bit outdated for the youngsters!)

Dear Ranjeet,

Let us analyze the issue step by step.

a) "In my company, an employee who has been working with us for the last 25 years had committed a mistake. He is working in the credit department, and due to some reasons, he is not able to follow up on the bills worth 40 lakhs with the ministry, which shows his negligence in duties."

Comments: 40 lakhs is a too big amount. Why did he not follow up with the client? The reasons need to be investigated. The law does not take into account the length of service of anybody.

b) "He had a clean record in his name in 25 years. The company had not even issued a single warning letter in his name. In this incident also, the company had not issued any memo but directly suspended him for 7 days (Standing order of the company is for 6 days)."

Comments: Law does not take into account a past clean record, especially considering the severity of the mistake. It may be that so far he could have been misappropriating funds, but he was caught now. Suspension pending inquiry is perfectly all right. If the accused is not suspended, there is every possibility of him tampering with the records and evidence. To avoid this, management has suspended him. During this period, he is eligible for a subsistence allowance.

c) "In continuation, the company had issued him a charge sheet asking for an explanation within 48 hours."

Comments: Before issuing the charge sheet, the company should have ordered an inquiry. A charge sheet can be issued directly only for smaller offenses, not for an offense of this magnitude. The charge sheet comes after the inquiry, not before it.

d) "If we say that big brands have good human resource practices or they say the employees are their assets only by giving welfare like LTA, Medicals, etc. Whether is it right."

Comments: It is not a question of big or small brands. Discipline is the foundation of any organization. To create a culture of discipline, instances of this kind need to be handled with an iron hand. It sends a message to one and all about the fate corrupt or negligent employees can invite. More than its application, the essence of the law lies in its deterrence. Mr. Ranjeet, you may note that India has more problems because of a lack of discipline and not because of a lack of intelligence or intelligent people. Secondly, justice is also the foundation of any organization. Your management must ensure that justice is done to the accused employee and to the organization as well.

e) "It's so painful to see things like this, that every second day you are suspending employees and there is nobody who can stand for them as unions are management-friendly as they know only to do their benefits only. (This employee is in the Executive cadre)."

Comments: Managers must think from the head and not from the heart. The Head Vs. Heart is an old debate and an old challenge for managers. You are pained because you are thinking from your head. Progress happens when issues are handled dispassionately or without involving emotions. I have read in the newspaper that an American employee was fired because she came 43 minutes late after the lunch break.

The accused employee can defend himself by citing evidence of the steps he took to recover the money. Did he keep his superiors informed of his inability to recover the outstanding amount, etc.? Notwithstanding this, his culpability is still established since he suppressed the material facts from his superiors.

I am not a legal expert. I have given my opinions based on my experience. However, Mr. RN Khola and Mr. JS Malik are the right persons to have clarifications from the legal point of view.

Thanks,

Dinesh V Divekar
Management & Behavioral Training Consultant
Bangalore - 560 094
+91 9900155394
"Limit of your words is the limit of your world."

Yes, suspension is not a punishment. The charged employee is kept under suspension pending investigation, gathering of all documents, etc., to frame charges against the charged employee by management. The charged employee should not tamper with, influence, or destroy the documents in the office. The charged employee needs to keep himself ready for the inquiry. Personal inquiry with the charged employee needs to be completed. Once the investigation is over and the charged employee's suspension can be revoked, the charge sheet, full inquiry, and findings are reviewed for awarding suitable punishment as per organizational rules.

Murali

Hi,

Mr. Divekar's views are perfectly right. I only gathered the impression from the original post that the suspension was not pending an enquiry, but as a punishment without affording him an opportunity to explain his position. I hope it was not.

I.N. Jha

Dear All,

Thanks for the responses.

Following are the points that I would like to share with you:

1. Is suspension without subsistence allowance justifiable by law or not?

2. Is suspending an employee for a single misconduct justifiable under the law and principles of natural justice?

3. Is suspending an employee without any formal inquiry justifiable?

4. Is it justifiable to chargesheet an employee directly, asking for an explanation even when there is no intention to conduct a domestic inquiry?

5. It is not a case of misappropriation of funds; rather, it is that bills worth 40 lakhs were not forwarded to the concerned ministry on time. Discipline encompasses various aspects.

Do you believe it is good human resource practice when employees feel their jobs are insecure?

Should we adopt a strict approach where people work only until their superiors are present?

Should we promote a culture where employees work under a constant feeling of insecurity and tension?

When we refer to Human Resources, our goal is to care for our employees and foster a positive culture within the organization.

I recently read a book by Mr. Khera, "You Can Win," where he mentions that fear-based motivation is only temporary and works as long as the fear factor or authority figure is present.

I personally advocate for an organizational culture where employees eagerly anticipate coming to work.

Please address my queries: Is having two suspensions in a week a step in the right direction?

Is terminating an employee's service or accepting their resignation the correct approach? Perhaps reducing headcount during this recession is a prudent policy.

How should one handle a situation where the GM reprimands everyone for minor issues, such as a phone disconnection due to technical reasons?

I feel he lacks an understanding of HR. Our company's foremost value is integrity and respect. Where is the respect for others, and where is the joy in the workplace?

Additionally, is it not advisable to issue warning letters for minor misconducts, such as absences, before proceeding to chargesheets or direct suspensions?

In cases of major misconduct, what procedures should one follow? Is it appropriate to issue a chargesheet without conducting an inquiry?

Is terminating an employee based on an audit report justifiable?

Your responses will be highly appreciated.

Regards,

Ranjeet

I agree with Mr. Dinesh - anything else I would add would only be a repetitive statement of his views already mentioned.

Please understand that "HR" is a link between the Management and the Employee. Nowhere is it a theory that the HR must only consider the employee's side of view.

To add to this - as an employee, you will not get to hear the "complete story". Only a part of the same would be revealed by the HR & Management to the others. The reason is to safeguard the employee's image to a maximum extent. This is something that employees, excluding HR people in the senior level, fail to understand.

Moreover - at the end of the day, every relationship at work boils down to business. It's "how much has been converted to money" that counts. The relationship may exist - but "a professional workplace" should be able to differentiate these two objects - "Relationship/loyalty" and WORK/delivery/consistency.

Hi,

Mr. Divekar has rightly replied to the query. One thing to add is that suspension is of two types. Firstly, as a punishment, and secondly, as a tool to prevent tampering of evidence, etc. Sometimes it is difficult to impose the responsibility upon management to explain its actions and then to act. As a first aid and emergent prevention, suspension could have been ordered. A viewing of the standing orders of the company would shed light on this.

Regards

Dear Ranjeet,

Your concern is correct. But I guess you need to read what Mr. Dinesh wrote. He has answered all your queries. In fact, I guess he has answered them so perfectly without any room for us to say...he he he... 😊 Please go through them and ponder on his suggestion carefully, and you will find a solution. Let not emotion take over the mind so you may be able to take the correct perception of the matter.

Regards,

ukmitra

"He is working in a credit department and due to some reasons, he is not able to follow up for the bills worth of 40 lakhs with the ministry which shows his negligence in duties."

If you read the line, it is clear that "he is not able to follow up" and hence negligence. I think his immediate boss should be given a charge sheet first as he/she failed to let it happen. Is it a good HR practice? The answer is “NO.”

Sarfaraz

This is the right approach for addressing any serious misconduct. Keeping an employee under suspension is appropriate for various reasons, ensuring that the delinquent employee will not tamper with or influence evidence. It is important to follow the company's standard operating procedures correctly.

Dear Friends,

I have read some of the detailed responses of fellow HR practitioners. I have the following advice to offer.

• Charge Sheet or Suspension is NOT an HR practice. There is nothing right or wrong about this.

• Managing Discipline or rather Indiscipline is a very important and sensitive function of the HR person in an organization. Ignoring indiscipline generally piles up into a messy affair which takes a lot of effort and time to sort out, at a later stage.

• Indiscipline must be addressed with clinical promptness and precision. There is no tailor-made solution how to handle indiscipline. Solutions are situation based and need to be so addressed.

• In this case an employee with a very long association and clean service record, is found to have not followed the proper system of following up with some clients resulting in an outstanding of Rs.40 lacs approx.

• The management has suspended him. Now as Ranjeet has stated, he has been suspended for 7 days whereas the Standing Orders of the Co. provide for suspension of only 6 days.

• I will safely suppose that the 6 day suspension stipulated in the Standing Orders is “Punishment” and not suspension pending enquiry.

• There is a suggestion that the Charge Sheet should have been issued after Enquiry. If it is Domestic Enquiry that is being referred to, the suggestion is incorrect.

• I will outline the process which needs to be followed if Disciplinary action is contemplated against an employee.

• At the very outset let me explain that the management is at liberty to suspend, Charge Sheet or take any action it deems proper in a given situation. What matters is whether the action so taken is correct under provisions of law or not. Can you commit a murder. Yes you can, but then you got to face the consequences.

• The correct process would be as under:

• • An employee commits an act of misconduct.
  • The management finds the act committed by him serious enough to immediately suspend him. This should be suspension pending enquiry into the matter.
  • At a later stage, after having examined the facts of the matter, the management may issue a detailed Charge Sheet.
  • It is important to impress here that the wording of the letter of suspension and later the Charge Sheet is critical and one should be careful about wording the two instruments of communication, since the entire proceedings will happen within the confines of these two letters. Legal advice may be sought before issuing this letter to an employee.
  • Suspension automatically implies payment of subsistence allowance…50% of the wages for this first 90 days and 75% after that till the completion of the Enquiry.
  • After the employee submits his written explanation to the Charge Sheet received by him, the management in the interest of fairplay and to grant the suspended employee fair and full opportunity to defend himself, may institute a Domestic Enquiry into the Charges leveled against the concerned employee.
  • For this the management will have to appoint an Enquiry Officer to conduct the DO(Domestic Enquiry) This process also follows a certain procedure which should be correct.
  • During the Enquiry the employee will be allowed to seek assistance of a co-employee or even an outsider (generally it a Union representative) to act as his counsel to represent him in the Enquiry proceedings.
  • After the enquiry is over the management will decide the kind of punishment it plans to inflict upon the employee for which proper written communication to the employee is necessary.

Correctness of the action taken, carefully considering the nature of misconduct and the punishment given, will determine the future course of action should the employee decide to challenge the decision of the management in a court of law.

Someone has said that in while addressing cases of indiscipline one should use
one's head and not the heart. I fully agree with this line of thought.

Managing indiscipline is very vast subject and there a lot of fine points that are involved depending upon situations. It will be difficult to list all of these in one go.

I hope the above narration and explanation of handling indiscipline gives you a good insight into certain important realities.

In case you have any specific clarification, please feel free to contact me anytime.


Best Wishes,

Vasant Nair
09717726667
Email: [Login to view]
s

Dear Friends,

I have read some of the detailed responses of fellow HR practitioners. I have the following advice to offer.

1. Charge Sheet or Suspension is NOT an HR practice. There is nothing right or wrong about this.

2. Managing Discipline or rather Indiscipline is a very important and sensitive function of the HR person in an organization. Ignoring indiscipline generally piles up into a messy affair which takes a lot of effort and time to sort out, at a later stage.

3. Indiscipline must be addressed with clinical promptness and precision. There is no tailor-made solution how to handle indiscipline. Solutions are situation based and need to be so addressed.

4. In this case an employee with a very long association and clean service record, is found to have not followed the proper system of following up with some clients resulting in an outstanding of Rs.40 lacs approx.

5. The management has suspended him. Now as Ranjeet has stated, he has been suspended for 7 days whereas the Standing Orders of the Co. provide for suspension of only 6 days.

6. I will safely suppose that the 6 day suspension stipulated in the Standing Orders is “Punishment” and not suspension pending enquiry.

7. There is a suggestion that the Charge Sheet should have been issued after Enquiry. If it is Domestic Enquiry that is being referred to, the suggestion is incorrect.

8. I will outline the process which needs to be followed if Disciplinary action is contemplated against an employee.

9. At the very outset let me explain that the management is at liberty to suspend, Charge Sheet or take any action it deems proper in a given situation. What matters is whether the action so taken is correct under provisions of law or not. Can you commit a murder. Yes you can, but then you got to face the consequences.

10. The correct process would be as under:

a. An employee commits an act of misconduct.

b. The management finds the act committed by him serious enough to immediately suspend him. This should be suspension pending enquiry into the matter.

c. At a later stage, after having examined the facts of the matter, the management may issue a detailed Charge Sheet.

d. It is important to impress here that the wording of the letter of suspension and later the Charge Sheet is critical and one should be careful about wording the two instruments of communication, since the entire proceedings will happen within the confines of these two letters. Legal advice may be sought before issuing this letter to an employee.

e. Suspension automatically implies payment of subsistence allowance…50% of the wages for this first 90 days and 75% after that till the completion of the Enquiry.

f. After the employee submits his written explanation to the Charge Sheet received by him, the management in the interest of fairplay and to grant the suspended employee fair and full opportunity to defend himself, may institute a Domestic Enquiry into the Charges leveled against the concerned employee.

g. For this the management will have to appoint an Enquiry Officer to conduct the DO(Domestic Enquiry) This process also follows a certain procedure which should be correct.

h. During the Enquiry the employee will be allowed to seek assistance of a co-employee or even an outsider (generally it a Union representative) to act as his counsel to represent him in the Enquiry proceedings.

i. After the enquiry is over the management will decide the kind of punishment it plans to inflict upon the employee for which proper written communication to the employee is necessary.

Correctness of the action taken, carefully considering the nature of misconduct and the punishment given, will determine the future course of action should the employee decide to challenge the decision of the management in a court of law.

Someone has said that in while addressing cases of indiscipline one should use

one's head and not the heart. I fully agree with this line of thought.

Managing indiscipline is very vast subject and there a lot of fine points that are involved depending upon situations. It will be difficult to list all of these in one go.



I hope the above narration and explanation of handling indiscipline gives you a good insight into certain important realities.

In case you have any specific clarification, please feel free to contact me anytime.

Best Wishes,

Vasant Nair

09717726667

Email: [Login to view]

s

Dear Jeeni,

I see varied views on the issues, and I thought I would add to it:

1. At the outset, an employee can be suspended pending an inquiry on serious charges. At times, due to the gravity of the situation, an employee may be suspended pending an inquiry, and a charge sheet can be issued in due course. As per the law, in general, if the standing orders apply (if the person is considered a workman), then subsistence allowance is payable.

2. The concept of penal discipline is generally used in the case of workmen, and in the case of executives, today such actions are not resorted to. Instead, counseling is used, and where it fails repeatedly, then one needs to look at other options for separation. Unless there is a deliberate malafide intent or an issue of integrity, it is best to have a mutually peaceful separation.

3. The decision on separation must be carefully taken. Unless there are serious issues, penal action against an employee with 25 years of blemishless service will demoralize others.

4. In the case cited by you, if management has done what you have said, then there will be no "fair play and equity." Every person must be heard before being condemned. If management does not do so and takes unilateral action, it will kill enthusiasm and instill "fear psychosis" among employees. In today's context of focusing on enhancing employee engagement, such management actions will produce an adverse effect.

5. Many times these days, managements use the termination clause in the appointment letter to terminate. Such actions can be questioned in court if the person seeks protection under the ID Act. It will be the onus on the management then to prove that the person is not a workman.

6. One more important point I would like you to note is that HR Managers many times have to dance to the dictates of the higher-ups. Many times they are helpless and forced to carry out the instructions. In the instant case, if the GM is a dictator, there is nothing that the HR Manager can do, or else he or she should be ready to quit.

7. A suggestion on what an executive can do: The executive can make a representation to the GM outlining what had happened. Such letters can be marked to the superior of the GM as well. Of course, a better option would be to approach the supervisor and through him or her seek to clarify and resolve the issue. In a case like this, a supervisor will also be accountable, and it will be unfair to blame the person below as a cause for failure.

8. One more aspect that needs to be seen is whether the work assigned is part of the normal job of the executive. Is the person briefed about the task clearly? Did the executive make efforts? If so, what was done? Was the employee provided adequate resources to do the task? Were there any extraneous factors that affected the transaction? We need answers to all these questions before coming to a conclusion as to who was responsible for the situation.

My answers to your points are as follows:
1. Suspension without subsistence allowance is justifiable by law or not. If the person is covered under the ID Act or standing orders, it will be bad in law. It is not the "designation" but the job done that will be the basis of judgment. A subsistence allowance is payable (please refer to the ID Act or standing orders). Even for an executive, the employer will stand high if a subsistence allowance is paid.

2. Suspension only if one misconduct is justifiable with law and the principle of natural justice. "Suspension pending inquiry" is not a punishment as per law. "Suspension" as a punishment can be imposed based on the gravity of charges proved in a domestic inquiry. If the principles of natural justice are not followed, the punishment is bad in law and will be struck down by a court.

3. Suspending an employee without any formal inquiry is not justifiable. Not justifiable. Even if an employee accepts, it has been opined to have an inquiry and then effect the punishment to avoid any charges that the admission letter was extracted.

4. To charge sheet an employee directly asking for an explanation even if you are not going to conduct a domestic inquiry is justifiable. It is fair to ask for an explanation from an employee by giving a notice of charges leveled with the details of acts of commission and omission, giving 48 or 72 hours.

5. It is not a part of misappropriate use of funds, it is just that bills worth 40 lakhs were not forwarded to the concerned ministry on time. Discipline includes a lot of things. We need to investigate the matter as outlined above by me.

Do you think that it is a good human resource practice where your employee thinks that their jobs are insecure? Whether we should take steps with an iron hand where people will work until the bosses are there? No, that will not yield results. Please give feedback to the management through your boss. Maybe you may not be aware of some facts that were not told. A healthy communication is required if there has been some reason. Whether we should encourage a culture where people are working with a feeling of insecurity and in a tense situation? Of course not. Such a culture will drive away talent and lead to slavery. When we say Human Resources, we are here to take care of our employees and to drive a good culture in the organization. HR is a tool many times used to shoot. A good HR Manager will try to avoid such situations by educating the management. If the HR Manager is under directions and has to execute without an option, what can he do? He can't jump and keep jumping. It is difficult to infer about HR or a manager unless we know the full situation. The truth many times is elsewhere.

I had gone through a book by Mr. Khera "You Can Win," where he has mentioned that fear motivation is only temporary. It works until the time the fear factor or boss is there. I personally believe in a culture in an organization where employees look forward to coming to the job. Yes, we need to create such a situation, an enabling climate. Look for specifics to be done.

Please answer my queries: Two suspensions in a week, are we going in the right direction? Need to look into the facts. Please ask your manager. If this is a culture, find another place to work. Throwing out an employee or taking their resignation, is it right or wrong? Maybe it is a good policy to reduce your heads in this period of recession. Need to understand the full facts and the situation before we can come to a conclusion. If the ship is sinking, then we need to see how we can turnaround.

What will you say to the GM who scolds everybody for small things like the phone being disconnected due to technical reasons in between? If the top man behaves like that, there is not much you can do. It is up to the management to see what they want to perpetuate. I am sure the noise will reach the management sometime, and they will take corrective action. Maybe I think he does not know what is the meaning of HR. Our first value of the company is integrity, respect... Where is the respect for the other, where is that joy at the workplace? Many times what you stated is given as lip service. That is why employee engagement varies, and it depends on what is actually present. The HR Department coming with statements without the commitment of the top will be of no use. The Management Team as a whole needs to articulate and take actions, or else such statements will hang on the walls like pictures.

Again, my question is: Is it not necessary to issue warning letters in minor misconducts like absence before issuing a charge sheet or suspending them directly is right? Ideally yes. But at times based on gravity, if the need for higher punishment can be given.

Kind regards

Hi,

Disciplinary action under the tenets of model standing order is perfectly all right. In the model standing orders, there is provision for suspension pending inquiry. Good human resource practice includes initiating disciplinary action against erring staff. The role of the HR dept cannot always remain good and should be in the direction of healthy practices.

Shibu Krishnan

The advice given by Mr Vasant Nair is absolutely correct. Thanks for sharing the rights steps to be taken in the conduct of domestic enquiry.
I am sure no one will have doubts now about the procedure.
KCS Kutty

Dear Friends,

I think Mr. Sarfaraz had hit the nail on the head.

A junior employee being HELD RESPONSIBLE for non-recovery of Rs. 40 lakhs (that too from a Ministry)

The question that arises are :

1. Is the "Ministry" running away with Rs. 40 lakhs ?? Anything due with the Govt. of India, can always be recovered.

2. Were the seniors sleeping for so many years, and then they suddenly woke up ?

3. Why should not the seniors be charge-sheeted ?? If they say, they were NOT aware, then this is also a big error on their part.

4. The truth, in my humble opinion, is that this poor chap had been reminding his bosses time and again regarding the Rs. 40 lakhs.

But since, the company wanted some favours from the Ministry, they were not pressing hard for the amount.

In turn they must be telling the person verbally (as it happens normally), to keep things in abeyance for some time.

Such verbal orders must have continued time and again.

Also, it is not possible for a junior employee to recover Rs. 40 lakhs from the Ministry on his own. He must be going to his bosses, who must be ordering him to keep quiet for some time.

I wonder how our dear HR professionals are baying for the blood of the poor employee in the name of "DISCIPLINE".

Give a dog a bad name, and then shoot him.

HR professional should develop the ability to -

• read between the lines
  
• be analytical in their approach and not to accept 'facts' as they are presented
  
• play a non-partisan strategic role for the betterment of the organization
  

Unfortunately, they only believe in :

• "HR" is a link between the Management and the Employee."

Link for what ?

A postman's job of passing repugnant orders from top-to-bottom ??

• "Nowhere its a theory that the HR must only consider the employee side of view."
  

Correct. One should take only the employer's side; after all its a question of one's bread-and-butter which is provided by the employer (and not by the employees).

Looked at this way, there is no difference between the HR's involvement and Auditors involvement in the Satyam scam - both acted on behalf and in collusion with the erstwhile management.

I agree that we are all responsible to our own families; but then we should also draw up a limit to the extent to which one can bend.

Else, why call oneself an HR professional (without perhaps having the requisite degrees/diplomas); better to go back to the business of sugar cane juice vending (as our member AnonymousA has implied in a thread).

Dear Ranjeet

I compliment you on putting up this thread, and I appreciate your personal values and professional ethics in thinking that suspension is unfair, and that something is not correct with this whole episode.

We need more upright, sensitive and brave HR professionals like you.

I agree with your satement "When we say Human Resouces, we are here to take care of our employees and to driven a good culture in the organisation."

and, I understand you when you say, "In my previous post also i had writeen that my HR Manager knows only to manage by hook or by crook. She just know what happens in one company itself as she is baby of this comapny."

I think HR these days have found a "new niche" in the scheme of things.

Unfortunately, I see that the day is not far off; when HR professionals will be handing summary Dismissal order; in case there is a loss in the company; to several office-boys ; the reason being - their indiscipline; in not providing good quality tea at the right time to senior officials, causing a drop in their efficiency and thereby causing a loss to the company !!!

Please do not laugh, when one can hold a petty employee responsible for Rs. 40 lakhs; why not office-boys for loss worth crores ??

After all, isn't whatever the BOSS says is correct ??

Regards.

Dear Friends,

I endorse Mr. KCS Kutty's view about the inputs from Mr. Vasant Nair.

Mr. Nair has given a very precise and legally correct brief on disciplinary proceedings.

Another point I wish to reiterate is: Issuing a charge sheet is not the end but the beginning of disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, a Departmental Enquiry needs to be constituted, an Enquiry Officer nominated; who 'appoints' a Prosecution Nominee and similarly allows the Charge-Sheeted Employee (CSE) to choose a co-worker to assist him in his defense. The proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, thereby meaning that all the principles of natural justice are followed.

However, in these days of profiteering, no company has the time or sensitivity to follow legally laid out rules. They have the power and money to bribe one and all. So principles are flouted with impunity.

It is for HR professionals to create a strategic role for HR in an organization; as well as champion the cause of fair play, corporate ethics, and principles of natural justice in an organization.

Also, they must be made aware of the role and rights of a whistleblower in an organization, and that it is alright to speak against the management in case principles of ethics are being compromised (and not just being an "agent" or a "yes-man" of the employer).

Warm regards.

Dear All,

Thank you for showing your interest.

I have learned a lot from these postings. Though my career is only 2 years, in these 2 years, I have come across many situations where I have seen the management being biased, autocratic, and ready to accept resignation only for one misconduct.

I have witnessed a situation where the management accepted a resignation because one of my associates raised his voice against them on a public forum like Facebook. I don't know if I am wrong to criticize things, but people in HR have often told me, "This is how things work here." I have had heated arguments over certain issues, but they dismiss it by saying, "We are in HR."

I have discussed with Madhu sir about the definition of workmen and executives, and he also shared his thoughts on the same.

There is no one to raise the voice of employees. They are made to work for a minimum of 12 hours a day without overtime pay and other benefits, and I feel helpless.

Unions seem to be more management-friendly, only focusing on their increments. I have learned about a case of management versus employees, where an employee was terminated just because he formed a union, and the case is still ongoing.

I underwent training at BHEL, Jhansi, and I was brought up in that culture. I witnessed good HR practices there and how they manage to make profits while ensuring total employee satisfaction.

We are not dictators; we are humans. Mistakes are a part of life, but one should be counseled first before any actions are taken.

Is it necessary to provide subsistence allowance for only 6 days?

I have many thoughts that I will discuss with all of you later.

Thank you for all the responses from my respected seniors. You all are like the Dronacharyas from whom I can learn a lot in my future career. Your guidance is always beneficial to all junior members.

Regards,

Ranjeet

Dear,

Why think so negatively about your profession? It all depends on personal values, the culture in which you have been groomed, and the knowledge you possess. HR is a good profession, but you have to take steps in the right direction.

Madhu sir and Malik sir, still waiting for your replies on the whole episode.

Regards,
Ranjeet

Dear Ranjit,

I could not reply due to my sickness. Discipline has to be maintained at any cost, but I have gone through this complete case, and the procedure has not been adopted correctly. I will reply to your query question-wise.

Dear Malik Sir,

I hope you are doing well now. Thank you for sharing your views.

Sir, in this case, management had not conducted any inquiry. Initially, when the case came into existence, HR issued a suspension letter for 7 days. Subsequently, HR issued a charge sheet requiring an explanation within 48 hours.

Now, as per the principle of natural justice, an inquiry should be conducted before suspension. It is essential to document each and every detail. If the inquiry does not take place, can someone still be suspended?

What steps can an employee take against the entire proceedings?

Sir, if someone does not show up for 7 days, can we suspend them for this?

Regards,
Ranjeet

Dear All,

Greetings!

The recent update on the case is quite concerning.

I can't believe that we, as individuals working in the HR Department, can make such a decision.

All of them are now free. Management conducted an inquiry about the incident, and the culprits are now free; they have only been given a warning letter about the decision, along with a warning letter to the victim.

The accused, who is a permanent employee, has a good relationship with the people in Management. Our Executive Chef has supported him. All the on-the-spot written statements have been set aside, and this decision to give all of them warning letters has been made.

The victims have also been given a warning letter because Management believes that he is also a part of the whole event, stating that "a clap requires 2 hands."

Kindly review my post again and provide your input. The victim has four witnesses against the accused, while there are only written statements from the accused about the victim. An independent third party has also provided a statement in favor of the victim.

Now, my question is: in which direction are we moving? Discipline is something we must take seriously. Is this the correct step to take?

What is happening in Guragaon in the automobile industry is a serious concern related to discipline.

The morale of the entire staff is very low, and I feel helpless.

Please advise on what to do.

Regards,

Ranjeet

Hi Ranjeet,

Happy Diwali to you too.

The results clearly show the hand-in-glove relationship between the culprit and the management, or the management is frightened by the potential consequences if we consider what you have said about the culprit.

Throughout this whole case, my sole focus was on the victim who was beaten. I am truly surprised at your company's decision and the reputation of the firm you are associated with. One needs to question whether they are truly "reputed".

Whether permanent or contractual, "No one on this earth has been given the right to physically assault anyone." Period. The victimized staff, even if at fault, should have been encouraged to file a police complaint against the accused, and then you would have had a different story to share. The shame under which the victimized staff will have to work is humiliating to even think about.

A company's reputation is in the trash (I apologize for the harsh words) when it comes to justice and fair practices, which is what I stand for.

Regards,
ukmitra