Employee Suspension and Defamation: How Should Companies Handle Ongoing Inquiries?

Employee Suspension and Defamation Concerns

If an employee is suspended for almost 3 months pending an inquiry involving several other employees who should also be suspended but were not, what about the defamation and damage caused to the suspended employee during this time? After 3 months, the suspended employee is asked to rejoin, with the company stating that no allegations have been proven as of now, but the inquiry is ongoing. The news was leaked to the media with names, portraying only one employee as suspended and defamed.

Employee Rights in Defamation Cases

What rights do the employees have in this situation?

Upon reviewing the paragraph, it appears that there were no allegations made, and the suspension was seemingly done hesitantly. It is advised not to revisit these cases as it may cause additional distress to both the management and the employee involved. Therefore, it is recommended to revoke the suspension and provide full benefits to the employee promptly, considering that the suspension appears to lack a clear motive or substantial evidence to support the previous actions.

How many employees are implicated in the suspension process?

It is crucial that the authorities responsible for conducting the inquiry have thoroughly investigated the matter to prevent such occurrences from arising in the future. The media should not be considered an integral part of your company; they may highlight issues or events that have taken place, but it is essential to remember that the company is ultimately managed by your boss, not the media. Prioritizing media attention over internal matters may risk damaging the company's reputation. Challenges and obstacles are inevitable in any work environment; however, one should not allow them to undermine their work and energy.

By sharing a portion of your problem, it should be adequate to address the situation.

Have a good day...

Dear Sir,

When considering the company's perspective, you may appear to be correct. However, what about the employee who is defamed in the industry? They may not have the option to join other companies while investigations are ongoing, and they have not been cleared even after three months of suspension. Either a clean chit should be provided, or the suspension should be continued until the investigation is complete. What is your opinion on this matter?

Thank you.

In a murky situation involving allegations of serious misconduct by multiple employees, any management would take action against an employee based on the preponderance of probability following discreet inquiries. Therefore, management may have deemed it wise to suspend the particular employee pending a thorough investigation. It falls well within the management's discretion in terms of disciplinary control, and the affected employee cannot challenge or criticize it as selective. Suspension pending an investigation is not a form of punishment. If the management fails to establish a case against the suspended employee, the suspension will be lifted immediately, and the investigation will proceed. This is precisely what occurred in the case mentioned in the post. Therefore, one should not be overly sensitive, as Caesar's wife must remain above suspicion. Instead of dwelling on the now-revoked suspension due to lack of prima facie evidence, the employee should consider the proverb that suggests where there's smoke, there's fire, and strive to avoid even being associated, albeit allegedly, with any such undesirable situations in the future.

Upon reviewing the first and second paragraphs, it appears that there are inconsistencies in the information provided. Please provide an accurate and clear picture of the case. If there are no allegations or evidence found against the employee, there is no reason to prevent rehiring that individual. Regarding the defamation of the employee that you investigated, the circumstances at that time necessitated certain decisions. While you did not terminate the person's employment, they were placed on suspension for the purpose of conducting thorough inquiries by the appropriate authority. It has now been determined that the employee was not responsible for the incident in question, leading to the suspension being lifted and the individual being instructed to resume their duties with all benefits.

If the organization believes that the defamation incident was beyond their control, it may be advisable to transfer the individual to the nearest unit or offer a transfer with a promotion to another unit. This will provide relief to the employee, as such situations can arise in any unit, organization, office, or department, regardless of circumstances beyond control. It is important not to dwell on such situations but rather to address them promptly. Following established procedures is essential, and emotional considerations should not compromise adherence to the rules.

Have a good day. Always proceed with pride and conviction, not simply following the prevailing winds.

I would like to clarify as follows:

1. Suspension pending inquiry

Suspension pending inquiry and revocation of suspension while the inquiry is in progress are common occurrences. If the company feels there is a case against the employee, it can keep the inquiry going on although it has revoked suspension. As pointed out by Shri Umakanthan Sir, suspension is not a punishment; the employer-employee relationship continues with the employee during the period of suspension, and it is only that the employer has decided not to take work from the concerned employee.

2. Management's right to suspend

Management has the right to choose whom to suspend. The suspension of an employee cannot be challenged in courts of law on the ground that other involved persons have not been suspended. So suspension is a discretionary right of the management.

3. Suspension and defamation

Suspending an employee or taking disciplinary action against an employee does not amount to defamation, civil or criminal as per law.

Hope the above clarifies. KK!HR

Dear Friend KK! HR, I would like to clarify as follows:

1. Suspension pending inquiry
Suspension pending inquiry and revocation of suspension while the inquiry is in progress are common occurrences. If the company feels there is a case against the employee, it can keep the inquiry going on although it has revoked suspension. As pointed out by Shri Umakanthan Sir, suspension is not a punishment; the employer-employee relationship continues with the employee during the period of suspension, and it is only that the employer has decided not to take work from the concerned employee.

2. Management's right to suspend
Management has the right to choose whom to suspend. The suspension of an employee cannot be challenged in courts of law on the ground that other involved persons have not been suspended. So suspension is a discretionary right of the management.

3. Suspension and defamation
Suspending an employee or taking disciplinary action against an employee does not amount to defamation, civil or criminal as per law.

Hope the above clarifies. KK! HR

Reading your clarification enlightens me:
Go through the clarification once, twice, at least umpteen times. Do you think you have given clear clarification? What do you mean by management has the right to choose whom to suspend? Can they suspend anyone at their will? Why not suspend the person at the highest helm because he is the person held responsible for all the mess? Why not suspend the HR who initiated the recruitment process and is the only responsible person for the disruption? They cannot select at the will of management, cannot bring in a scapegoat. In the mass, they can suspend none.

How do you say that it cannot be challenged in court? The substances, evidence, and related articles, when proven false, everything can be challenged. And it is not a common occurrence, suspension and revocation. We cannot suspend at the will of officials and at the will of management unless you need to with evidence and existence, so it is not a matter of whims and fancies. Disciplinary proceedings are not defaming the employee or organization; it is the truth-finding post-mortem for the errors done, loss incurred, where the system halted and needs nourishment.

Please, before posting, read your post not once but umpteen times. When time permits, go through the postings of Shri Dinesh Diwekar, Shri Umakanthan, and senior persons who are active and giving suggestions from their heart.

Best of Luck... Have a Good Day...

Dear Gopinath, by stating that the management has the right to suspend or has the discretion to suspend an employee, it is meant that the management is within its powers in suspending an employee. By suspending an employee, the management has only chosen not to take work from the employee, but the liabilities regarding the employee still continue. The suspended employee is entitled to various other benefits like any other employee (such as a New Year gift, uniform, even annual increment - MP High Court has given this decision, though there is no Supreme Court decision in this regard).

In situations like this where a big group of employees is involved in misconduct, the management can pick and choose the employee to be suspended, maybe looking at the evidence available, the leadership role played, the extent of provocation made, or the weakest possible. However, there cannot be a valid defense that other similarly placed employees have not been suspended, so I cannot be suspended. The management does not owe an explanation as to why it has suspended a particular employee. In case there is no adequate evidence to support the action, then management will have to pay the price by way of back wages, restoration of all other facilities, etc., besides, most importantly, loss of face. So before suspending an employee, a lot of thought has to be there. The Supreme Court has mandated that there has to be a periodical review of suspension cases; in Government, it has to be done once in six months.

I do not subscribe to your view that in mass situations, none can be suspended. There is all the more the need for management to act decisively and strike with force in such situations. Personally, I have dealt with a situation of a 37-day strike involving nearly 10,000 workmen, caused by inter-union rivalry, and in the process, we had terminated 3 employees and suspended nearly 70. I feel the situation could come under control because of these actions. What all would have happened if such action was not taken cannot be even guessed. In the end, the strike was called off, and the management did not concede a single demand, and a wage cut was imposed. Though in such situations no victory could be claimed, the fact remains that industrial peace remained for long, and the impression gained ground that management cannot be taken for granted.

I also value immensely the comments of Shri Dinesh Diwekar, Shri Umakanthan, and other senior persons and have endorsed the views of Shri Umakanthan Sir. Indeed, I was trying to add to it and thought that I could add looking at my nearly four-decade experience in HRM in the manufacturing sector.

I have a habit of reading my post many times before posting; anyway, thanks for reminding me.