Navigating Employee Transfer and Inquiry: How to Handle Relieving Amid Legal and Disciplinary Challenges?

Hi, a union leader was transferred, but he got a stay from the court against his transfer orders. In the meantime, he was involved in serious misconduct, and management suspended him pending inquiry. Also, a criminal case was lodged against him under the provisions of IPC.

Now the court has vacated the stay on his transfer, and management wants to relieve him immediately.

My query is:

1.0 Whether anything is to be mentioned in the relieving letter related to ongoing disciplinary proceedings. We have given him the letter with the date of the start of inquiry proceedings, but before the inquiry started, we got a transfer stay vacated from the court, and the circumstances compelled him to relieve himself and move to his new place.

2.0 What is the fate of the inquiry proceedings? At the new place, we will have to appoint a new Inquiry Officer.

3.0 Incidentally, an inquiry letter is given, but the inquiry has not yet started. Suppose the inquiry proceedings had started, how would the relieving process work in such cases? Can a workman be relieved amid ongoing inquiry proceedings? If yes, how can the inquiry proceedings be completed at a new place where it is practically not possible to have the same Inquiry Officer? Can an inquiry be completed by two Inquiry Officers?

Regards,

Hi,

In the complex scenario described, where a union leader has been involved in serious misconduct, faced suspension pending inquiry, and had a criminal case lodged against him under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the situation has become legally intricate. The recent development of the court vacating the stay on his transfer has added another layer of complexity, as the management now seeks to relieve him immediately.

Regarding the queries raised:

It is essential to address ongoing disciplinary proceedings in the relieving letter. Even though the inquiry proceedings had not yet commenced due to the stay order, the circumstances have now changed with the stay being vacated. The relieving letter should mention the status of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, the date when the inquiry was supposed to begin, and the reasons for the immediate relieving due to the court's decision and the individual's transfer.

The fate of the inquiry proceedings is subject to the specific policies and procedures of the organization. With the individual being relieved and transferred to a new location, a new Inquiry Officer will need to be appointed to conduct the proceedings at the new place. It is crucial to ensure that the new Inquiry Officer is impartial and follows due process in conducting the inquiry.

In the scenario where the inquiry proceedings had already commenced before the individual's relieving:

The process becomes more complex. While it is possible to relieve a workman amid ongoing inquiry proceedings, it is essential to ensure that the inquiry is completed fairly and transparently. In cases where a new Inquiry Officer needs to take over at the new location, the continuity and integrity of the inquiry must be maintained.

Having two inquiry officers involved in completing the inquiry proceedings is a viable option, provided that proper documentation and handover procedures are followed to ensure a seamless transition. It is crucial to adhere to legal requirements, internal policies, and principles of natural justice throughout the entire process to uphold fairness and transparency.

In conclusion, navigating the complexities of relieving an employee amid ongoing disciplinary proceedings requires careful consideration of legal implications, procedural requirements, and ethical standards. By ensuring transparency, fairness, and adherence to due process, organizations can effectively manage such challenging situations while upholding principles of justice and integrity.

Thanks

Dear Dr. Raghunath, Mr. Madhu, and Esteemed Senior Experts,

While addressing the original question, please also consider the following query emerging from the discussion, with legal citations if available:

An intriguing query has emerged

An intriguing query has emerged in our recent discussions, and we would greatly appreciate your insights and guidance on the matter. The scenario involves a charge-sheeted workman transitioning to a new workplace, where the disciplinary authorities and the applicable certified standing orders may differ. We seek clarification on the following points:

Communication and Applicable Standing Orders

Upon joining the new workplace, who will be responsible for signing further communications? Additionally, which standing orders will apply to the workman upon their arrival at the new location?

Status of Suspension and Relieving

If the workman is relieved during the suspension period and subsequently joins the new workplace, what will be the status of his suspension? Furthermore, what communication should be provided to the workman regarding this transition?

We request your expert insights and guidance on these matters.

Thank you for your attention to this query.

Warm regards,

Before answering the queries, clarity needs to be given as to whether the transfer was to an outstation or if it is at the same location. In either case, the inquiry can continue, but the employee must be afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself. Presuming it to be outstation, the inquiry can be held at the present place, but the employee has to be treated as on duty and given traveling allowance and facilities to attend the inquiry. If the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer could travel to the new place, that would be an option. Anyhow, the delinquent employee should not be put at any loss or prejudice in attending the inquiry.

Clarification on Queries

As regards the queries, it is clarified as follows:

1.0 The usual relieving order is to be issued and issued quickly, lest the employee goes in appeal and obtains another favorable order. By a separate letter, you can clarify that the inquiry will proceed and the arrangement for it, like the venue, date, and time, as well as the facility being given to the employee like attendance, TA & DA, etc.

2.0 The inquiry can continue; it is not necessary to appoint a new Inquiry Officer (IO) at the new place. If the present IO is not able to continue, then a new IO can be appointed. Since the proceedings have not started, there is no prejudice caused to the employee in making the change in IO. There is no need to state the reason for changing the IO. Only a fresh order is to be issued to that effect.

3.0 Even if the inquiry proceedings had been started, the relieving can still be done, but it is to be specified that the relieving is without prejudice to the action that can lie on the basis of the findings of the inquiry. There is nothing wrong if the inquiry is completed by two or more IOs; the only thing is that the Principles of Natural Justice have to be complied with by giving a fair opportunity to the employee. The newly appointed IO has to continue the inquiry from the stage it is left now; the order appointing the new IO should specifically state so.