Promotion Dilemma: Can Misconduct as a Workman Affect You Under Officer Rules?

As per our company policy, the workmen are covered under the Standing Order, and an officer is covered under the CDA Rules. Can a workman, after getting promoted to an officer grade, be charged under CDA rules for any misconduct charges leveled against him during the period when he was a workman.

I think it is strange that a workman gets promoted to an officer while facing pending charges of misconduct. Can you please clarify whether the individual was charged before the promotion, or if the charges were brought against him after the promotion due to later discoveries?

Regarding the query, no charges are pending against him when he was a workman. He is charged with misconduct after his promotion as a result of later findings for things he did when he was a workman.

As per our company policy, a workman does not have any supervisory power and is not covered under the Conduct Discipline and Appeal (CDA) rules. He is covered under the Standing Orders. However, here the employee, after becoming an officer, is charged under CDA rules for misconduct done during the period he was a workman.

Thanks & regards,
Raj

Sir,

I just wanted to know whether the employee can be charged now (after becoming an officer) under CDA Rules for charges of misconduct done during the period when he was a workman and governed by the standing orders.

Thanks & regards, Raj

Sir,

I believe that the misconducts in the Standing Orders and CDA rules are the same. Therefore, the employee should be charged under CDA rules (under which he is currently governed) for the misconduct committed when he was a workman (under the Standing Orders).

Thank you.

It depends on the charges leveled against him. Since he is an officer now, only CDA rules apply to him. If the misconduct committed is covered under CDA rules, he may be tried under it. It doesn't matter whether it was committed during a non-executive period.

Thank you for your reply.

Case History

"The Officer is charged for technically recommending a party and also accepting the change in quoted price during the tendering process when he was a Workman."

Being a Workman, he does not have the competence, technical know-how, or the authority to make technical recommendations. The Workman does not have any authority to decide on any matter, including financial matters, but only facilitates the functioning of the office as per the directives of the superiors. The entire tendering process was conducted under the direct supervision and directions of the higher authorities.

As a Workman, he is governed by the Certified Standing Order, and the misconduct charges leveled against him do not fall under any of the provisions of the said Standing Order.

Standing Order and CDA Rules are different. According to the Standing Order, a Workman is a person employed directly by the company in its factory or any of its establishments to perform manual, technical, operational, clerical, or other work for hire or reward, excluding those performing supervisory duties.

Regards

CDA rules are applicable to officers holding supervisory posts. It seems the company waited until the workman got promoted to officer level and then implicated charges on him as per CDA rules. Can the employee appeal against the disciplinary action as he did not have any supervisory power during the time of tendering, and he had acted on the advice/instruction of his seniors?

It is not ethically right to charge a person with rules and regulations prevailing at the time of the offense and not as per management's convenience. In such a case, you should not have considered him for elevation at all.

In my view, he needs to be left alone.

Can the management now take disciplinary action as a result of recently discovering misconduct charges against the Officer, who has refuted the allegations, during the time he was an employee without any supervisory authority based on his current grade?

"The officer is charged for technically recommending a party and also accepting the change in the quoted price during the tendering process when he was a workman. A workman does not have any such authority. It looks like he is being made a scapegoat. The case has no legal strength in its present form."

Whatever offense may be committed in whatever position during service is punishable as per the conduct and discipline rules applicable to the position held by the employee at the time of serving the charge sheet.

Sorry for my last careless post with the wrong sentence. PLEASE READ THE SAID POST AS FOLLOWS:

Whatever offense may be committed in whatever position during the service of an employee is punishable as per the conduct and discipline rules applicable, as per the position held by him at the time of serving the charge sheet.

Handling Termination and Legal Risks in Public Sector Organizations

What if a senior officer is neither terminated on account of self-abandonment of her service (the company just settled her dues, including gratuity, as per CDA rules, without issuing a termination letter) nor has the company conducted an inquiry as per the public sector organization's CDA rules? Is there any provision to remove her from attendance/role/company as per Indian law, or must the company obtain approvals from the Board/vigilance/ministry to exercise such actions unethically? Is there a very high legal risk for the company? Are there any reference cases in India? Please provide your views on the consequences for the company and the employee.

Thank you for your time.

I fully endorse the view of Mr. Nathrao. Having said that, I also have to add that it is purely managerial politics in that the very promotion of the individual might be a ploy to make him a scapegoat in order to save someone else actually responsible and accountable for the alleged lapse. Any act of omission or commission that could be brought within the four corners of the term "misconduct," as defined in the applicable rules and regulations, is the precursor to the disciplinary proceeding.

When you are so sure that it was not at all an enumerated misconduct in the Standing Orders by virtue of his employment position at the time of the occurrence, why is the management bent upon fixing him after his promotion? From an ethical perspective, it is certainly not correct. However, from a legalistic approach, if the impact of the alleged lapse has several and long-lasting ramifications that compel disciplinary action on all involved, it is immaterial whether it is an enumerated misconduct or not because it could be an act of negligence in the incumbent's lower position, and as such, he cannot resist it successfully. But what is important is that he alone shall not be punished just for hushing up the matter. In such an exercise satisfying both legal and moral norms, I would subscribe to the suggestion of Mr. Dhingra.

Regards