Can a Major Chargesheet Result in a Minor Penalty Like Censure? Seeking Clarity

Question on Disciplinary Authority's Penalty Decisions

Can the Disciplinary Authority, during the awarding of punishment in a major chargesheet, instead award a minor penalty like censure? As per the Standing Order of the company, only the Minor Chargesheet specifies censure as a punishment.

Regards,
JayDG

Sorry, I made some serious errors in describing the issue. I need to make some clarification here. Actually, I meant Major & Minor Penalties and not Major & Minor Chargesheet. The Penalties are different (around 3-4 each) for each of the above two types of penalties and depend on the seriousness of the offense.

Again, the time given to the charge-sheeted employee for representation/reply in case of a minor penalty is 48 hours, whilst it's 7 days for a Major Penalty. The case in question is that of "Habitual absence from duty without leave or without sufficient cause." If the CSE was given 7 days to make a representation on the charges alleged, can the Disciplinary Authority impose a Minor Penalty like "Censure" instead of one of the Major Penalties like "Reduction to a lower grade(s) or post(s) or lower stage(s) in a time scale"?

Thanks & Regards

It is the discretion of the Punishing Authority to give punishment based on many factors considered at the apex level, taking into account the organization's interests. The decision cannot be questioned. In our view, it may look like a small punishment, but their view may be different. Moreover, the punishment is meant for correcting the behavior of the employees, not for actual punishment.

"Dear D. GURUMURTHY, with due respect to you, Sir, I have two questions to ask you:

1. Can the Punishing Authority award disproportionate punishment?
2. If services are terminated by way of punishment, do you mean to say that the employee has no right to question or challenge the decision?

I feel the answers to the above questions will provide valuable insight to the members of the forum.

Regards."

Always remember that "punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of misconduct."

General Example
Law does not hang a person for just theft because the gravity of theft is minor compared to the case of murder.

Corporate Example
An employer cannot terminate an employee just for forgetting their company ID card because the gravity of forgetting the ID card is minor compared to physically assaulting a supervisor on the shop floor.

So, what I want to convey is that you should evaluate the gravity of misconduct and then decide on the appropriate punishment. It is within the authority of the punishment decision-makers to reduce the severity of punishment even in cases of major misconduct.

The employee's past experience with the company, their behavior, and their past attitude are also considered when lessening the severity of punishment.

Regards,
Arun J.

Thank you for the replies. The question hasn't been answered completely; this is my correct/incorrect observation. Some questions remain:

1. Judging the Severity of Punishment

How can one judge while formulating a charge sheet whether the punishment will be minor or major? That's a lacuna in our system. In my humble opinion, the award of a penalty is the last step after all inquiries have been fairly conducted within the Principles of Natural Justice. Thus, the question remains: How can an Inquiry Officer or a Disciplinary Authority frame a charge sheet (i.e., whether it should be 48 hours or 7 days, or in other words, a Minor or Major Penalty Charge Sheet) when the inquiry itself hasn't been conducted, and no report has been submitted?

2. Role of the Disciplinary Authority

Again, in my opinion, like many of you have rightly said, it's up to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the Disciplinary proceedings. In that case, the DA might even decide to quash the proceedings if he thinks in the interest of justice without completing the entire cycle up to the punishment stage. In fact, I think that this is one of the powers bestowed upon the DA. But here, one fact remains: whether the DA decides on a punishment (and also the quantum of punishment) or decides against it - the REASON must be recorded in WRITING.

3. Circumstances for Quashing Proceedings

This is the most important question. What are the circumstances under which a DA might decide to quash the proceedings or take a lenient view, even though he might have initially seen the misconduct in the category of a Major Punishment? Your views are solicited here.

One easy answer would be past experience - but then if it's a first-time simple offense, one is usually let off with a warning or censure. But again, isn't the DA smart enough to have thought and given time on the issue while issuing a C/S rather than reacting in the heat of the moment? Also, in my company, a C/S is usually preceded by a number of warnings and advisory letters, including counseling for the misconduct of habitual absenteeism. So the question remains, why should there be a change of heart later on?

There is also the issue of equitable justice here; if one is let off for whatever reason, then all DAs should do the same in similar circumstances with others too. Secondly, it should not be construed as a weakness/partiality leading to more indiscipline in the future.

Your views are solicited.

Thanks & Regards

In continuation of my earlier post, the only reasonable and logical explanation for the segregation of punishment into two categories, along with iterating the different quantum of punishment in each, is perhaps to ensure equitable punishment and remove the chances or possibilities of different punishment for the same misconduct. Perhaps it acts as a guide for the DA.

Thanks & Regards,
Jay

For your first question, I can answer as follows: In most cases, the charge sheet is given when you want to go for a major punishment. In minor cases, HR doesn't go for a charge sheet. Secondly, the 48 hours or 7 days is decided based on the gravity of misconduct, such as misappropriation of funds, violent behavior, etc.

For your second question, I can answer as follows: The disciplinary authority can decide the punishment in consultation with HR. All the documents are kept recorded. If the workman is not satisfied with the judgment given by the disciplinary authority, then he can go to the labor court.

For your third question, I can answer as follows: For this, I can only say it depends upon the nature of misconduct.

Regards,
Arun J.

Understanding Misconduct and Disciplinary Procedures

An organization lists certain conducts as MISCONDUCTS, and accordingly, there is a process to examine whether such offenses have been committed. Ideally, effort should not be wasted on the inquiry of all misconducts, as there are certain minor ones too. Accordingly, different procedures have been adopted to ensure that misconducts calling for major penalties receive due care and detailed inquiries.

Misconducts and the inquiry process have been devised to address misconducts involving minor and major penalties.

Once the charges are proved, the matter goes to the competent authority or the disciplinary authority competent to award punishment. The first and foremost requirement is that they should APPLY THEIR MIND in awarding punishment. The punishment must be commensurate with the misconduct committed.

Moreover, in awarding the punishment, they can also take into consideration the past track record of the employee. Additionally, whether the offense is the first one committed in a long blemish-free career and can be attributed to some momentary lapse or extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the employee?

There can be several situations where awarding the usual or standard punishment can be excessive or counter-productive. While awarding a more severe punishment than specified can be termed unfair, awarding a MORE LENIENT punishment considering the circumstances is entirely within the rights of the Disciplinary Authority.

Moreover, there are several cases where a harsh punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority has been TONED DOWN by the APPELLATE AUTHORITIES.

As such, there is nothing abnormal if a more lenient punishment is awarded by the Disciplinary Authority.

Warm regards.

With due respect to the questioner and in deep consideration of his initial question and successive posts, I am compelled to raise the following counter-questions to him: For whom is the question being asked? On behalf of the delinquent employee? Or on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority?

In the case of a delinquent, there is no point in questioning the wisdom behind the lighter or the lightest punishment awarded for serious misconduct. If it is raised by another delinquent facing the same set of charges of serious misconduct for the simple reason that he has been awarded a major punishment, even then it will be futile to base his defense on such a ground in his appeal for the reason that the DA has discretion of judgment, taking into account the mitigating circumstances of the charges leveled in each and every disciplinary case. The right to impose a penalty carries with it the duty to act justly.

The query raised in his third post as to the classification of penalties into minor and major while at the framing stage of charges itself is a pertinent one. To me, the reason seems to be rational, for it is the effect of an action that always determines its nature, whether serious or ordinary. Unless there is a Code of Conduct, there is no scope for any misconduct. Misconduct, per se, is a very difficult attribute to be precisely defined as minor and serious. That's why misconduct has been classified as minor and major depending upon the punishment likely to be imposed.

The last query in the questioner's penultimate post is indicative of his concern for the precarious position of the DAs in a situation of awarding different punishments to different people for the same or similar type of misconduct. Equitable Justice, in my personal viewpoint, means the proper admixture of the right to impose a penalty and the duty to do it justly. There cannot be any straight-jacket formula for this, and thus the element of discretion emerges.