How Do You Draft a Warning Letter for Employees Neglecting Leave Reporting?

I need your help in drafting a warning letter for employees who are not reporting leaves and showing negligence in their work.

Thanks,
Tanvi

Please search in CIN to find information on Cite HR. You will be able to access a number of warning letters and can select one according to your requirements.

Please find the sample format. I hope it will help you. Have a great day!

You can't issue a warning letter without conducting a domestic enquiry. It is a stigma on the worker's record, as the courts have ruled that issuing a warning letter without following the principles of natural justice is illegal. Instead of using the word 'warning,' the term 'caution' is a better choice.

Dear Shrikant,

The thread was old; nevertheless, your reply has revived it.

You have written that "You can't issue a warning letter without conducting a domestic enquiry. It is a stigma on the worker's record, as the courts have ruled. Issuing a warning letter without following the principle of natural justice is illegal." If this were the case, would you mind providing me with the case law to support your statement?

Issuing warning letters in organizations

The issue of issuing warning letters is common in private sector, public sector, or government organizations. Most of the time, for minor misconduct, warning letters are issued. If receiving a warning letter were considered a stigma, then it is the problem of the employee. He/she should have been more thoughtful before committing misconduct. It is the responsibility of the employee, not the management, to keep his/her records neat and clean.

Example of issuing warning letters for minor misconduct

Regarding the original point of issuing warning letters for minor misconduct, let's take the example of a shift in charge. He/she is responsible for providing proper briefings to their reliever. If the shift in charge fails to do so 2-3 times, creating problems for the subsequent shift in charge, should the management conduct an enquiry and then issue a warning letter?

Based on your contention, every company would need to have a permanent legal cell where multiple enquiries are in progress.

The importance of natural justice and its implications

Adherence to the principle of natural justice is of paramount importance. However, domestic enquiries should be conducted sparingly and reserved for grave misconduct. The average employee frowns upon enquiries or even becoming a witness. It lowers the morale of the employees. Excessive enquiries could lead employees to become defiant. Instead of accepting fault with humility, they may start defending their positions, leading to a toxic work atmosphere. If a few individuals start finding faults in the enquiries or try to turn the tables against the Enquiry Officer (EO) or HR or management itself, how should this situation be handled? These individuals may boast in informal discussions about how they evaded enquiries and educate others on finding loopholes.

The overall objective of the enterprise is to satisfy customers and improve competitiveness. This can be achieved by creating a culture of fairness and justice. However, overdoing it could make the whole exercise counterproductive. This other side cannot be ignored.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

Sir, though I fully agree with the views expressed by seniors and experts, particularly Sh. Dinesh Divekar ji & Umakanthan ji, I may submit for the kind consideration of seniors that in Central Govt. offices of the Govt. of India, principles of natural justice are strictly followed as far as taking departmental action is concerned. In Swami's Handbook 2007, the scope of a warning letter is mentioned as follows:

"Scope of a Warning Letter

(1) There may be occasions when a superior officer finds it necessary to criticize adversely a subordinate's work or call for an explanation, bringing the defects to notice and giving an opportunity to explain. If the lapse is not serious enough, like negligence, carelessness, lack of thoroughness, etc., to justify the imposition of the formal punishment of censure, but calls for some formal action such as the communication of a written warning/admonition/reprimand, it may be administered, and a copy of such a warning should be kept in the personal file of the subordinate.

(2) Written warnings, admonitions, or reprimands should not be administered or placed on record unless the authority is satisfied that there is good and sufficient reason to do so.

(5) A warning should not be issued as a result of regular disciplinary proceedings. If it is found that some blame attaches to the official, then the penalty of censure at least should be imposed.

(6) A warning is not a punishment." Swami's Handbook, as quoted above, is an authorized reference book on Central Govt. Employees Rules, etc.

Procedure for Disciplinary Action

Further, in one of the departmental manuals on disciplinary action procedures, the Central Govt. has advised its officers on the following procedure for taking disciplinary action against a delinquent employee:

(i) A Government employee violating the aforesaid provisions of the Conduct Rules for the first time should be advised by the appropriate disciplinary authority to desist from approaching Members of Parliament/Members of State Legislature to further his/her interest in respect of matters pertaining to his/her service conditions. A copy of this advice need not be placed in the CR dossier of the employee concerned.

(ii) If a Government employee is found guilty of violating the aforesaid provisions of the Conduct Rules a second time despite the issue of advice on the earlier occasion, a written warning should be issued to him/her by the appropriate disciplinary authority, and a copy thereof should be placed in his/her CR dossier.

(iii) If a Government employee is found guilty of violating the aforesaid provisions of the Conduct Rules, despite the issue of a warning, disciplinary action should be initiated against him/her by the appropriate disciplinary authority under the provision of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

In view of the above, I feel that it will not be proper to conclude as "You can't issue a warning letter without conducting a domestic enquiry. It is a stigma on the worker's record, the courts have ruled. Issuing a warning letter without following the principle of natural justice is illegal," as mentioned by Mr. Shrikant_Pra. I hope Mr. Shrikant will refer to his post and guide us by providing a few citations of Hon'ble Court judgments (as requested also by Mr. Divekar) in support of his comments so that we may update ourselves accordingly.

As per the Standing Orders Act, a warning can be issued for late coming. Why? Because the misconduct is already on record. If a warning letter is not considered a punishment, why is it mentioned in the Act? The erring employee should not be asked to submit an explanation for the noticed error. This is what I meant by natural justice. Without seeking an explanation, if a warning letter is issued, will it stand if it is contested?

Understanding Warning Letters and Employee Conduct

1. In warning letters, the language typically serves to caution the employee about their conduct. If an employee who receives a warning letter wishes to challenge it, they can appeal to their superiors above the issuing authority. In such instances, it is up to the higher authority or the disciplinary authority to accept or reject the explanation provided. Employees often make numerous mistakes, whether minor or serious. Administrative authorities or the employer can issue a charge sheet addressing all such actions. Consequently, very few employees would risk displeasing their superiors by objecting to every single matter, including simple warning letters. An employee will always remain subject to the authority of their superiors, the disciplinary authority, or the employer, even when leveraging principles of natural justice. Hopefully, a sincere and conscientious employee understands and complies with these circumstances.

Contesting Warning Letters

2. Generally, in cases where the content of warning letters is contested by the employee, if a mistake or misconduct is identified, the administrative authorities concerned initiate charge sheets or departmental actions. Ultimately, it is the employee themselves who bears the consequences.

Request for Court Judgments

3. I hope that this forum will also provide "a few citations of Hon'ble Court judgments (as also requested by Mr. Divekar) in support of his aforementioned comments so that we can update ourselves accordingly," as I have previously requested in my comments.

Respecting the well-considered views of the senior members Mr. Dinesh, Mr. Umakantan, and Mr. Harsh Kumar, I would try to bring my understanding of disciplinary action to bear on the issue under discussion. Shrikant's main contention is that since a warning is a penalty, it shall not be imposed without conducting a domestic inquiry. It is true that the Standing Orders enumerate "warning" or "censure" as a penalty for acts of misconduct. Normally, the Standing Orders distinguish between acts of minor misconduct and acts of major misconduct and prescribe penalties of minor nature and major nature proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. The penalty of "warning or censure" is prescribed for acts of minor misconduct or, as Mr. Umakantan said, for minor infractions of discipline.

The Standing Orders also, at the same time, grant discretion to the disciplinary authority to waive domestic inquiry if the misconduct is of minor nature and the penalty imposed is a warning or censure. The honorable Supreme Court in the Food Corporation of India vs. Sarat Chandra Goswami, 2014 LLR 785, held that an inquiry is not necessary for minor penalties. So it is not necessary to conduct in every case where a warning is imposed as a penalty since it is a minor penalty. What is required is that the delinquent employee be issued with a show-cause notice to explain his conduct. This would suffice to satisfy the principles of natural justice. However, the Standing Orders further say that if a workman has received three such warnings in the past for a particular act of minor misconduct but repeats it for the fourth time, it becomes a major misconduct, and the workman is liable for disciplinary action. Though a warning is technically a penalty under the Standing Orders, it is not considered a stigma for promotions, increments, or retirement benefits.

Regards, B. Saikumar

HR & Labour Law Advisor

Navi Mumbai