Case of Employee Misconduct and Legal Conviction
I have a peculiar case at hand. One of our employees was exonerated in DE for misconduct involving righteous behavior. Subsequently, in the criminal case arising out of the FIR of the incident, the court held him guilty of the offenses under the IPC. However, his imprisonment was waived, and he was asked to pay a fine. The conviction stands, and only the penalty was waived. Can I terminate him for being found guilty of moral turpitude by the court? My standing order mentions that I can do so. How do I justify my findings in DE? Please advise along with supporting court cases.
Regards,
Amitabh
From India, Patna
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
I have a peculiar case at hand. One of our employees was exonerated in DE for misconduct involving righteous behavior. Subsequently, in the criminal case arising out of the FIR of the incident, the court held him guilty of the offenses under the IPC. However, his imprisonment was waived, and he was asked to pay a fine. The conviction stands, and only the penalty was waived. Can I terminate him for being found guilty of moral turpitude by the court? My standing order mentions that I can do so. How do I justify my findings in DE? Please advise along with supporting court cases.
Regards,
Amitabh
From India, Patna
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Comparison of Inquiry Types
Both inquiries stand on different footings. DE is a quasi-judicial inquiry wherein the evidence is based on the preponderance of probability, whereas in a judicial inquiry, the guilt has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the departmental inquiry, the CSE was found not guilty. However, in judicial proceedings, he was convicted and asked to pay a fine, with imprisonment waived.
Termination Based on Conviction
In this case, the conviction is still valid, and he can be terminated as per the standing orders. Even if the inquiry officer finds him not guilty of the misconduct, you can still disagree with the findings of the inquiry officer and proceed with the speaking orders to terminate him, provided there is a clause to that effect in the standing orders. However, you must follow the due process of law before terminating him.
Regards
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
3Both inquiries stand on different footings. DE is a quasi-judicial inquiry wherein the evidence is based on the preponderance of probability, whereas in a judicial inquiry, the guilt has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the departmental inquiry, the CSE was found not guilty. However, in judicial proceedings, he was convicted and asked to pay a fine, with imprisonment waived.
Termination Based on Conviction
In this case, the conviction is still valid, and he can be terminated as per the standing orders. Even if the inquiry officer finds him not guilty of the misconduct, you can still disagree with the findings of the inquiry officer and proceed with the speaking orders to terminate him, provided there is a clause to that effect in the standing orders. However, you must follow the due process of law before terminating him.
Regards
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
SC - Gratuity can be denied only on termination for mortal turpitude 6.12.2016.pdf
SC JUDEGEMENT ON FORFEITURE OF GRATUITY IN MORAL TURPITUDE CASES.docx