Can a PSU can suspend an employee who does not have any disciplinary proceedings against her?

I am a female employee working in a PSU company. I was transferred once and, on request, was sent back to my original place of posting, where my family resides. Then again, within a period of one year, I was issued a transfer order. Since I was not able to carry on the transfer, I had made several representations, which my management did not accede to my request and were rigid that I should join my new place of posting soon, whereas a few employees' requests were considered, and their transfers were kept at abeyance. Every now and then, I was receiving mails to join or strong action will be taken. Since I had no option, I filed a petition in court against which the hearing is still pending. But now my company has issued a suspension order under CDA Rules Clause 1, schedule II of rule 3j, calling for strict disciplinary action. My punching has been disabled.

My query is whether a company can suspend an employee without any disciplinary proceedings and disable his punching.

Please seek your guidance.

Thanks

What is our company policy on hometown/request postings? Normally, when transfers are given, an employee has to move, and no court will grant relief unless the employee can prove malicious intent in the posting. Transfers are a fundamental aspect of any employment. Has the court issued a stay order on your transfer? The company can suspend an employee and then conduct disciplinary proceedings.

Thank you, sir.

As per the company policy, an employee is transferred every three years. In my case, I was transferred within one year of completion. There was an ego problem between the seniors I was reporting to; one was in favor of my transfer, and the other was against it. My current transfer order states that I will be handling the same functions but from my new place of posting. In such a case, please provide guidance.

Thank you

Also, I am being discriminated against since a few employees' transfers were not carried out upon their request, whereas in my case, it was not considered. Additionally, I would like to know if, in the case of suspension, an employee can attend the office and whether he has to surrender his ID card.

The court had called for papers regarding the transfer policy, which the company asked some time to submit. Until then, the court verbally instructed that no action should be taken.

Whether some employees have been transferred after one year (sometimes compassionate or hometown postings are for a year only), malafide intentions have to be proved for the court to take action. The company will provide details of employees transferred after one year and have a large number of reasons for the transfer.

Why have they asked you to surrender your ID? An employee under suspension is still an employee. Discuss this aspect with your lawyer and see whether it can be shown as a negative and predetermined action of the company (due to ego clashes, as you mentioned, between two prominent individuals). Your advocate is the best person to guide you. Keep close contact on all case-related issues and keep pressing for quick relief.

The company may try delaying tactics in court because the more the delay, the more the employee will face financial difficulties. Best of luck.

Suspension is not a penalty under CDA rules; however, it should be followed by a charge sheet. Transfer orders on administrative grounds shall be followed; otherwise, efficient administration will not be possible. In your case, if there is any genuine grievance, go ahead and register it on the portal and hope for the best. The ID Act does not apply in your case.

Dear Nims,

Suspension does not follow disciplinary action. Rather, suspension is a pre-disciplinary event that is resorted to by the management or administration against an employee if he/she is found guilty of some misconduct. So, disciplinary proceedings against an employee follow the suspension, if made. Your case pertains to misconduct of insubordination and disobeyance of orders of the competent authority, which is termed as unbecoming of a public servant. Besides, you have filed a court case against the management when a transfer is one of the pre-conditions of service. That would have added fuel to the fire to make the management more irritated with your misconduct. Suspension is normally made when the management takes a very serious view of the employee's misconduct. The process of framing a chargesheet against you would be underway. If suspended, the management seems to have the intention to serve you with a major penalty chargesheet for which a regular departmental/domestic inquiry will be held. A chargesheet can be served to you at any time in the near future to be followed by a departmental inquiry. You will, however, get the opportunity to defend your case by engaging one serving official or a retired person to help you assist in defending your case during inquiry proceedings.

It may also be pointed out to you that your court case will not have any impact on the departmental inquiry unless a stay is granted by the competent court of law. But that is not advisable, as a stay would only lead to a delay in the departmental inquiry and decision, not the withdrawal of the chargesheet. Delay in the departmental inquiry can hamper the process of development of your future career as well.

It may also not be out of context to point out that courts normally do not interfere with the administrative process of the management, particularly in transfer cases, unless sufficient proof of injustice is brought before the court. Normally, a transfer is considered to have been made in the interest of the service of the organization. To cancel a transfer or hold it in abeyance is the discretionary power of the management, where courts do not normally interfere in the process.

MY ADVICE: Act wisely in both cases. Don't get misled by ignorance or emotions.

Thanks all,

My query is when the case is in court, can a company suspend an employee when the company had agreed in court that no action will be taken? I agree that a transfer is a precondition. But once transferred back, why is the employee transferred again? For a company issuing a transfer order does not have any impact. But the person who has to serve the transfer gets affected. A female who has to balance work and family life; such types of transfers within a year seriously affect her family mentally and physically.

When the government is implementing new policies to encourage more women to take up employment and work while maintaining a balance between work and family, there should be some flexibility by the management instead of being rigid. When, as far as possible, administrative work is running smoothly without any hindrance, please guide on what should be done further.

Dear Nims,

In your case, I will be with Mr. PS Dhingra. When you applied for a transfer on compassionate grounds to your hometown, at that time, the vacancy may have been available, and the transfer might have been granted for a 1-year period to help you resolve your problems. After that period, if you receive a transfer order, you must move forward unless the management agrees to hold off on your transfer request.

Instead of rejecting the transfer order, if you request a transfer to a nearby location within the same city where you are currently placed, it is likely that your transfer could have been approved. Filing a case against your employer will only further provoke the management. Try to resolve the situation amicably and, if possible, explore other job opportunities.

Wishing you all the best.

Dear Nims,

I can understand your difficulties. But, one thing needs to be understood well - there is a great difference between fact and fiction. The fiction is the work-life balance, which is a personal affair of an employee and the personal responsibility of the employee to give that a practical shape by making appropriate adjustments between his/her daily chores of family life and the schedules of official life. If some organization ethically takes care of the personal needs and affairs of its employees, that can be treated as an ideal organization, which is quite rare on this earth.

Contrarily, the fact is that, irrespective of the personal or family life affairs of an employee, every individual is destined to work in the interest of the organization, which pays him/her with the sole aim of taking care of the interests of the organization. Only a few individual officers/managers of some organizations can be expected to take care of the work-life balance of their team members, provided the team member also takes enough care to help the boss discharge his organizational duties and responsibilities well towards the achievement of official targets by maintaining utmost performance efficiency of the team in general and the boss in specific.

So, work-life balance cannot be claimed as a matter of right from the employer by any employee, nor does any rule or act of law bind an employer to ensure work-life balance of the employees against the interest of the organization. If he does so, that can be taken as a matter of grace and gratitude on the part of the employer or the management.

So far as your suspension is concerned, in Government/PSU system, suspension is not treated as a punishment. Rather, suspension is resorted to restrain the employee from taking part in official work and also to avoid him/her from tampering with the evidence against him/her. Suspension is a common practice in the workplace for being in violation of an organization's policy, or major breaches of policy. Work suspensions occur when the administration/management deems an action of an employee, whether intentional or unintentional, to be a violation of policy that should result in a course of punishment, and when the employee's absence during the suspension period does not affect the working of the organization. Although the decision to suspend is not necessarily disciplinary in nature, when suspension takes place it is normally in circumstances involving potential gross misconduct. Alternatively, suspension may happen where relationships have broken down, or where it is considered there are risks to your employer's property/records to be tampered with.

About your query, "when the case is in the court, can a company suspend an employee when the company had agreed in the court that no action will be taken," in the absence of any stay order, the company can suspend an employee to restrain him from participating in the day-to-day activity of the company. If the company agreed not to take action, that means, although due, the company would avoid taking any disciplinary action against you till the pendency of the court case. But if you think seriously, that also goes against your own interest. The court proceedings may take a very long time, whereas the company withholds (not canceled) its decision to take action against you till the court case is decided. The company, if suspended you, can be considered to have determined to take disciplinary action against you any time after the verdict of the court in your case comes. The finalization of the disciplinary case taken thereafter is also likely to take years together. So, till both the cases are finalized and also the punishment period is over, if punished in the disciplinary case, your career/promotions will surely be affected adversely.

So, you will have the need to fight both the cases wisely and effectively.

Please don't think that I am trying to terrify you. I am simply trying to make you aware of the facts of official life and to make you alert about the likely future dilemma to happen for you to face and to plan your activities tactfully and wisely to tackle that.

Apparently, the suspension is part of the chain of your transfer, your non-compliance with the transfer order, and seeking judicial review. However, for the time being, the legal elements are such that the issue of suspension needs to be viewed as an unrelated event. It appears from the disclosed facts that you have been placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. Unless you wish for an amicable settlement, let the matter remain as it is. The onus rests with the management to issue the charge sheet and conduct the proceedings. Further course of action could be decided once the charge sheet is issued.

As for the transfer, the court is already seized of the matter; they have called for the papers. Let it take its course.

Dear member,

Seniors and experts have already explained and recorded their views in detail in the above remarks. I think it is not feasible to submit any new ideas. However, for clarity purposes, I would like to request you to please provide the following information, if possible:

1. What is the name of the PSU in which you are working? Which service rules are applicable to employees working in the said PSU?
2. What is meant by "CDA Rules" as mentioned by you in one of your replies?
3. Is there a transfer policy in your PSU?
4. In which court have you filed the case? Is it the appropriate court with jurisdiction as per your service rules? As far as I remember, Central Civil Services employees/officers are required to file such cases only in CAT with the appropriate jurisdiction.

Thank you.

In my posting above, 'ceased' may be read as 'seized'. The lapse is regretted.

Hi,

Can a PSU, instead of suspension, directly terminate (as per company CDA rules) the service of a manager-grade employee on transfer? After joining the transfer location, management has made them work as a salesperson instead of the manager-grade position (possibly as per the Sales Promotion Act 1976) and tried harassment in all possible ways, including inducing salary reduction. As a result, after 2 years, the employee has taken a long leave with an email intimation to the boss and HR, but the leaves are considered as authorized absences.

Is the PSU empowered to terminate the employee without conducting a domestic enquiry, etc.?

Please note the screenshot attached for good advice from seniors.

Thanks to all seniors.

With reference to Boss2966, our company does not have any locations close to my current place of posting. I had also applied for deputation, which I understand now that my company has not sent as per the company's requirements. The recruiting company had asked for the required documents, but our company is not cooperating with them. If an individual is seeking placement in another company, why are they not cooperating instead of trying to harass? What are your opinions? Please guide.

Also, when I posted back, the posting was not for one year. Since the work can still be carried out from the current place,

Reference to Haresh Kumar Mehta: It's an oil PSU. CDA stands for Conduct, Discipline, and Appeal. The transfer policy is every three years, but it does not apply equally to all employees. There are many who have not been transferred for many years. The case is filed in the High Court.

Thanks to all and seek your guidance.

Dear Nims,

I can guess, maybe on your own or due to the wrong guidance of someone close to you, out of ignorance about rules and regulations, you had taken some steps in disgust or disappointment, which worked awfully wrong in your case and also led to indiscipline on your part, enhancing your woes.

Regarding your application for deputation, I would like to point out that in government or PSU organizations, deputation is never a right-based event; rather, it is always request-oriented and requires due vigilance clearance. Firstly, the acceptance or rejection of a request is solely at the discretion of the employer. Secondly, vigilance clearance is essential before forwarding an application for deputation. Thirdly, even if an application is forwarded against government instructions, no government organization accepts the applicant of any official/executive on a deputation basis if any vigilance/disciplinary action is pending or even contemplated.

There are two negatively impacting points in your case that could become significant hurdles in forwarding your deputation application: (1) your suspension, indicating a pending or contemplated disciplinary action against you, and (2) your court case against the company, which has likely caused anger among your superiors. Until both issues are resolved and three years have passed since the closure of the disciplinary case, you will not be eligible for vigilance clearance to forward your deputation application.

Therefore, before anything else, prioritize expediting the court case as well as the disciplinary proceedings to effectively defend your cases. Otherwise, these events may harm your career for years to come.

Kind regards,

[Your Name]

Dear Nims,

Does your suspension come with the payment of subsistence allowance or not? I mean, after suspension, obviously your company is not paying you a salary; instead, did they provide you with the 'subsistence allowance'?

Notwithstanding, if you need to seek relief, I suggest you engage with your HR and make arrangements to report to the place/post where they have transferred you. Failing to do so, I am afraid you will incur irreparable loss and mental stress. You may also consider withdrawing the case against the company. Most probably, your company might make it a precondition to allow you to rejoin duty and lift the suspension order. Furthermore, I presume your company should have an Appellate Authority for addressing grievances within your administrative mechanism. If so, file your petition for a compassionate posting to a desired place. However, a verdict in your favor is not guaranteed. In matters of transfer/posting to an appropriate place and duty responsibilities without a loss of fixed emoluments, you have hardly anything to contest. Please bear this fact in mind, pal.

Hello seniors,

An anonymous individual replied to one of the well-known senior posts on February 7th. The post is very similar to the above thread, but the PSU (Public Sector Undertaking) has taken a step further under the ownership of the President of India's company. They are terminating employees without suspension and providing Full and Final settlement.

The PSU is operating in a dictatorial manner, saving on suspension salary and benefits for potential legal cases in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The legal case appears to be very strong in comparison. It might soon occur at Nims24 if not reported promptly for a transfer.

It is surprising to note that none of the seniors are interested in responding to the anonymous reply. The attached screenshot provides clearer information on the importance of a domestic inquiry.

TC.

Dear anonymous,

The earlier anonymous has been posting this query in the forum on many occasions and has been advised that his query can only be addressed by legal actions. The forum has no practical solution for the happening as described by Anonymous.

"Surprise to note that none of the seniors are interested to reply to the anonymous posted reply." So this statement is incorrect. Also, remember that advice by seniors is a voluntary act out of interest to assist the community at large, and no one can draw a conclusion and get surprised.

I have burnt my fingers twice in high court single and double bench by dismissing the writ petitions, before joining the transfer location. After joining the transfer location without any opinions, hoping for good treatment, now after 2 years of ill treatment by PSU, I need to decide on a review petition at HC or SLP at SC. Hence, I was trying to understand the case grounds and strength by various seniors/experts to proceed legally or not (as PSU bears legal expenses by public money, but I need to bear it by savings for many years, after that I want to be sure).

Regards

Dear anonymous,

If you have lost at both the single and double bench levels at the High Court, then you have to approach the Supreme Court. There must be some fundamental weakness on your side that needs to be analyzed and addressed if you want relief from the courts. Legal battles are always expensive for any individual, but organizations can afford to pay. Think twice before venturing into legal battles. Try to settle things in the office itself. The court should be a last resort.

1. Sir, I think there is a time limitation within which one can file an appeal or review petition in the High Court or the Supreme Court.

2. As a general rule, the Honorable courts do not intervene in transfer cases, citing reasons that it is within the powers of the executive, and courts cannot interfere with the powers of the executive. Even in cases where there is a transfer policy in any department, the Honorable courts refuse to intervene, citing reasons that such transfer policies are not statutory but merely departmental instructions and discretionary.

3. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no utility in making a prestige issue with the Authority. Instead, it is more advisable to follow the instructions, comply with the grievance procedure, and if in any case, it is felt that a transfer is vindictive and with a malafide intention, an employee may exhaust the departmental channels first and then approach the Tribunal or High Court, etc., having the proper jurisdiction in such matters as per the applicable service rules.

Dear sir,

HRD has been transferred to the marketing department without a change in pay scale.

HC has dismissed the writ as per the appointment clauses; the screenshot is attached.

The reporting officer has utilized clause no. 12 and assigned Manager responsibilities at Guwathi, where there is no company establishment, and attendance salaries are paid via email.

Later, after one year, medical representative responsibilities were given, where daily reports are sent by post and mail, but a salary reduction was implemented without providing reasons.

The question is whether the responsibilities assigned are in line with natural justice or if there are malicious intentions, as the purpose of the appointment for an engineer is being defeated.

If I were given AGM grade salary and infrastructure/manpower, then clause no. 12 should be applied.

Is the clause legally confirmed, as any designation/function implies they are assigned an attender job?

Has HC made an error?

To my knowledge, within 3 years, an SLP can be filed in the SC, and I have a strong case.

Regarding a review petition, I am unsure of the time limit.

I have had a clean record for the last 8 years.

The company settled my account without a domestic enquiry, as I was threatened by the reporting officer, and hence, I did not report for duty for 9 months. However, the Full and Final settlement was completed last month based on extended absence (I have communication via mail with valid reasons and documented proof for being absent).

According to various PSU service conditions/CDA rules/standing orders, the punishment after an enquiry is usually limited to demotion or a cut in increments, definitely not suspension or dismissal from service.

As per clause no. 15, the company can transfer to the same role or connected experience; otherwise, in my opinion, the HC judge may transfer to an equal rank of a police commissioner since both are familiar with law and order.

Let us assume the company has acted correctly according to CDA rules, and they may have obtained board approvals.

Perhaps I was due for a promotion, and there may not have been an available position in the company. However, this does not justify the misuse of technical manpower based solely on clauses in the appointment letter (in my opinion, the appointment letter is an understanding between both parties and not a legal bond).

Dear seniors, thank you for your time. I am expecting clarification on the merits of the case, please.

Kindly ignore any mobile typing errors.

Regards.

Please find attached the screenshot for the above reply.

Dear Anonymous,

To be brief, I would say that the terms and conditions, as accepted by the candidate at the time of the offer of appointment, are sacrosanct and cannot be considered to have been automatically waived off. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court cannot be deemed wrong, as per clause 12 of the terms of appointment.

Secondly, the approval of the Board is not required in transfer cases. Transfers can be made by the competent authority delegated with the powers by the Board or the Managing Director.

However, you were free not to accept clauses 12 and 15 of the appointment before acceptance or could have referred the matter subsequently to the Managing Director or Board for relaxation of the said terms.

Sir, as per clause no. 12, it is a standard clause normally used in the interest of the company. However, any functional responsibility or designation in a PSU can require one to work in a lower position, such as an attender, with a corresponding adjustment in salary.

Dear colleagues,

Please find attached a screenshot of the High Court's single bench ruling, which was positive for the employee and advised the company to follow the order. However, due to a strong stance, they rejected it.

Regards and thank you for your time.

Hi Anonymouse,

There seems to be some misinterpretation of the judgment on your part. The judgment appears to have become hazy for you due to two different statements appearing in the judgment. The judge has very clearly stated, "I find no legal predicament to grant the prayer." As per the judgment, that clearly means that the judge has not found any injustice in the application of the conditions of your appointment in your case to admit your prayer. In the order, the judge has simply asked respondent No. 4 to "consider" your representation, dated 19.10.2013. However, he has not given any clear direction for the said respondent to consider that positively or negatively. The judgment left the matter totally at the discretion of respondent No. 4, to give a positive or negative decision on the consideration of your representation.

Dear friend,

The Hon' HC did not grant relief nullifying the transfer itself (ref. screenshot). If you read the judgment/order, it simply states the representation of the petitioner should be 'considered' expeditiously within the time mentioned in the order. Therefore, you cannot claim there is relief granted by the HC. The company still might say, "the representation of the petitioner has been considered sympathetically in the light of HC directives and found no merit in the grounds raised by the petitioner, and as per the terms & conditions of the appointment, the petitioner should have reported to the place of posting/transfer. Since he has not reported, he was reported as 'deserter/absentee,' and as per the rules of the company, he was terminated following necessary procedures," or in some other words meaning the same action.

The CDA (Conduct, Discipline & Appeals Rules) has to be read together with your Terms & conditions of offer/appointment which you have accepted. I don't think this can be changed now. It's also very much delayed; I don't know what relief you are entitled to legally. Better you can consult some eminent advocate with available documents to know what is possible at this juncture.

Dear Kumar S,

After the judgment of the single bench, I have reported the transfer location where I worked for 2 years. However, due to harassment, salary reduction, and lack of office or company infrastructure, I self-abandoned the duty. Subsequently, HR settled my account. Please review my earlier replies.

With this in mind, I am considering filing a review petition or Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court.

Regards

Dear Mr. Kumar,

I have accepted the appointment letter for the recruitment of the GM - Engineering position. The double bench order (please refer to earlier reply screenshots) of HC needs to be aligned with the appointment regarding the post, purpose, designation, and experience of the candidate, etc. If this is untrue, the company should have published an advertisement in the paper regarding the "GM" position, elaborating on all departmental experiences including HR, etc.

By transferring me, the purpose of the appointment is defeated, and it is a misinterpreted and misused management decision for individual purposes. Recent judgments indicate that any employee has the right to abandon their duties, and the company cannot treat them as a slave.

I was demoted from the GM position to a manager, then further down to a medical representative (PSR), with the next indicated role being an "Attender." Therefore, the duties were abandoned.

Can an expert provide a response based on the principles of "Natural Justice"?

Thank you.