Dear All, Need your help in drafting a Warning letter for the employees not reporting of leaves and negligence in work. Thanks Tanvi
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
please search in cin firnd information in cite hr so that u will get number of warning letters and u can select one among them as per your requirment.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
170From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You can't issue a warning letter without conducting a domestic enquiry. It is a stigma on the worker's record, as the courts have ruled that issuing a warning letter without following the principles of natural justice is illegal. Instead of using the word 'warning,' the term 'caution' is a better choice.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Shrikant,
The thread was old; nevertheless, your reply has revived it.
You have written that "You can't issue a warning letter without conducting a domestic enquiry. It is a stigma on the worker's record, as the courts have ruled. Issuing a warning letter without following the principle of natural justice is illegal." If this were the case, would you mind providing me with the case law to support your statement?
The issue of issuing warning letters is common in private sector, public sector, or government organizations. Most of the time, for minor misconduct, warning letters are issued. If receiving a warning letter were considered a stigma, then it is the problem of the employee. He/she should have been more thoughtful before committing misconduct. It is the responsibility of the employee, not the management, to keep his/her records neat and clean.
Regarding the original point of issuing warning letters for minor misconduct, let's take the example of a shift in charge. He/she is responsible for providing proper briefings to their reliever. If the shift in charge fails to do so 2-3 times, creating problems for the subsequent shift in charge, should the management conduct an enquiry and then issue a warning letter?
Based on your contention, every company would need to have a permanent legal cell where multiple enquiries are in progress.
Adherence to the principle of natural justice is of paramount importance. However, domestic enquiries should be conducted sparingly and reserved for grave misconduct. The average employee frowns upon enquiries or even becoming a witness. It lowers the morale of the employees. Excessive enquiries could lead employees to become defiant. Instead of accepting fault with humility, they may start defending their positions, leading to a toxic work atmosphere. If a few individuals start finding faults in the enquiries or try to turn the tables against the Enquiry Officer (EO) or HR or management itself, how should this situation be handled? These individuals may boast in informal discussions about how they evaded enquiries and educate others on finding loopholes.
The overall objective of the enterprise is to satisfy customers and improve competitiveness. This can be achieved by creating a culture of fairness and justice. However, overdoing it could make the whole exercise counterproductive. This other side cannot be ignored.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(5)
Amend(0)
The thread was old; nevertheless, your reply has revived it.
You have written that "You can't issue a warning letter without conducting a domestic enquiry. It is a stigma on the worker's record, as the courts have ruled. Issuing a warning letter without following the principle of natural justice is illegal." If this were the case, would you mind providing me with the case law to support your statement?
The issue of issuing warning letters is common in private sector, public sector, or government organizations. Most of the time, for minor misconduct, warning letters are issued. If receiving a warning letter were considered a stigma, then it is the problem of the employee. He/she should have been more thoughtful before committing misconduct. It is the responsibility of the employee, not the management, to keep his/her records neat and clean.
Regarding the original point of issuing warning letters for minor misconduct, let's take the example of a shift in charge. He/she is responsible for providing proper briefings to their reliever. If the shift in charge fails to do so 2-3 times, creating problems for the subsequent shift in charge, should the management conduct an enquiry and then issue a warning letter?
Based on your contention, every company would need to have a permanent legal cell where multiple enquiries are in progress.
Adherence to the principle of natural justice is of paramount importance. However, domestic enquiries should be conducted sparingly and reserved for grave misconduct. The average employee frowns upon enquiries or even becoming a witness. It lowers the morale of the employees. Excessive enquiries could lead employees to become defiant. Instead of accepting fault with humility, they may start defending their positions, leading to a toxic work atmosphere. If a few individuals start finding faults in the enquiries or try to turn the tables against the Enquiry Officer (EO) or HR or management itself, how should this situation be handled? These individuals may boast in informal discussions about how they evaded enquiries and educate others on finding loopholes.
The overall objective of the enterprise is to satisfy customers and improve competitiveness. This can be achieved by creating a culture of fairness and justice. However, overdoing it could make the whole exercise counterproductive. This other side cannot be ignored.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(5)Amend(0)
I fully endorse the views of Mr. Dinesh Divekar. In the first place, a warning is not a punishment, whether it is given in a pre-enquiry stage or post-enquiry depending upon the mitigating circumstances, if any. In cases of minor infractions of the rules of discipline that can result in minor punishments, the employer can exercise discretion to let the delinquent employee off with a mere warning. In such cases, there is no necessity to conduct any domestic enquiry. Even in the case of serious misconduct, if the employee admits guilt unequivocally, there is no necessity to conduct any domestic enquiry. A "warning" is simply a record of the employer's displeasure about the erring employee's particular conduct in a given situation and a caution to avoid it in the future; it cannot be treated as or equated with a punishment warranting the lengthy process of a domestic enquiry.
As mentioned earlier, at times the alleged charges could not be proved in the enquiry due to technical reasons. In such situations, instead of complete exoneration, the employee can be let off with a warning if their employment position is one of confidence. This rare situation should not be compared or confused with misconduct of a trivial nature. To achieve effective results closely tied to employee morale in an organization, the disciplinary control mechanism should be very progressive, with a warning being the lowest disciplinary action. Therefore, in case of a warning issued after the admission of guilt by the delinquent, there is no necessity for a domestic enquiry.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(6)Amend(0)
As mentioned earlier, at times the alleged charges could not be proved in the enquiry due to technical reasons. In such situations, instead of complete exoneration, the employee can be let off with a warning if their employment position is one of confidence. This rare situation should not be compared or confused with misconduct of a trivial nature. To achieve effective results closely tied to employee morale in an organization, the disciplinary control mechanism should be very progressive, with a warning being the lowest disciplinary action. Therefore, in case of a warning issued after the admission of guilt by the delinquent, there is no necessity for a domestic enquiry.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(6)+1 more
Amend(0)
Sir, though I fully agree with the views as expressed by seniors and experts, particularly Sh. Dinesh Divekar ji & Umakanthan ji as above, I may submit for the kind consideration of seniors that in Central Govt. offices of Govt. of India, principles of natural justice are being followed strictly so far as taking departmental action is concerned. In Swami's Handbook 2007, the scope of a warning letter has been mentioned as follows:
"(1) There may be occasions when a superior officer may find it necessary to criticize adversely his subordinate's work or call for an explanation, bringing the defects to the notice and giving him an opportunity to explain. If the lapse is not serious enough, like negligence, carelessness, lack of thoroughness, etc., to justify the imposition of the formal punishment of censure, but calls for some formal action such as the communication of a written warning/admonition/reprimand, it may be administered and a copy of such a warning, etc., should be kept in the personal file of the subordinate.
(2) Written warnings, admonitions, or reprimands should not be administered or placed on record unless the authority is satisfied that there is good and sufficient reason to do so. .......
(5) A warning should not be issued as a result of regular disciplinary proceedings. If it is found that some blame attaches to the official, then the penalty of censure at least should be imposed.
(6) A warning is not a punishment......." Swami's Handbook as quoted above is an authorized reference book on Central Govt. Employees Rules, etc.
Further in one of the departmental Manual on Disciplinary action procedures, the Central Govt on one subject has advised to its officers the following procedure for taking disciplinary action against its delinquent employee:
(i) A Government employee violating the aforesaid provisions of the Conduct Rules for the first time should be advised by the appropriate disciplinary authority to desist from approaching Members of Parliament/Members of State Legislature to further his/her interest in respect of matters pertaining to his/her service conditions. A copy of this advice need not, however, be placed in the CR dossier of the employee concerned.
(ii) If a Government employee is found guilty of violating the aforesaid provisions of the Conduct Rules a second time despite the issue of advice on the earlier occasion, a written warning should be issued to him/her by the appropriate disciplinary authority and a copy thereof should be placed in his/her CR dossier.
(iii) If a Government employee is found guilty of violating the aforesaid provisions of the Conduct Rules, despite the issue of a warning to him/her, disciplinary action should be initiated against him/her by the appropriate disciplinary authority under the provision of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
In view of the above, I feel that it will not be proper to conclude as "You can't issue a warning letter without conducting a domestic enquiry. It is a stigma on the worker's record, the courts have ruled. Issuing a warning letter without following the principle of natural justice is illegal" as mentioned by Mr. Shrikant_Pra as above. Hope Mr. Shrikant will refer to his post as above and will guide us and intimate a few citations of Hon'ble Court judgments (as requested also by Mr. Divekar) in support of his above comments so that we may be able to update ourselves accordingly.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(5)
Amend(0)
"(1) There may be occasions when a superior officer may find it necessary to criticize adversely his subordinate's work or call for an explanation, bringing the defects to the notice and giving him an opportunity to explain. If the lapse is not serious enough, like negligence, carelessness, lack of thoroughness, etc., to justify the imposition of the formal punishment of censure, but calls for some formal action such as the communication of a written warning/admonition/reprimand, it may be administered and a copy of such a warning, etc., should be kept in the personal file of the subordinate.
(2) Written warnings, admonitions, or reprimands should not be administered or placed on record unless the authority is satisfied that there is good and sufficient reason to do so. .......
(5) A warning should not be issued as a result of regular disciplinary proceedings. If it is found that some blame attaches to the official, then the penalty of censure at least should be imposed.
(6) A warning is not a punishment......." Swami's Handbook as quoted above is an authorized reference book on Central Govt. Employees Rules, etc.
Further in one of the departmental Manual on Disciplinary action procedures, the Central Govt on one subject has advised to its officers the following procedure for taking disciplinary action against its delinquent employee:
(i) A Government employee violating the aforesaid provisions of the Conduct Rules for the first time should be advised by the appropriate disciplinary authority to desist from approaching Members of Parliament/Members of State Legislature to further his/her interest in respect of matters pertaining to his/her service conditions. A copy of this advice need not, however, be placed in the CR dossier of the employee concerned.
(ii) If a Government employee is found guilty of violating the aforesaid provisions of the Conduct Rules a second time despite the issue of advice on the earlier occasion, a written warning should be issued to him/her by the appropriate disciplinary authority and a copy thereof should be placed in his/her CR dossier.
(iii) If a Government employee is found guilty of violating the aforesaid provisions of the Conduct Rules, despite the issue of a warning to him/her, disciplinary action should be initiated against him/her by the appropriate disciplinary authority under the provision of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
In view of the above, I feel that it will not be proper to conclude as "You can't issue a warning letter without conducting a domestic enquiry. It is a stigma on the worker's record, the courts have ruled. Issuing a warning letter without following the principle of natural justice is illegal" as mentioned by Mr. Shrikant_Pra as above. Hope Mr. Shrikant will refer to his post as above and will guide us and intimate a few citations of Hon'ble Court judgments (as requested also by Mr. Divekar) in support of his above comments so that we may be able to update ourselves accordingly.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(5)Amend(0)
As per the Standing Orders Act, a warning can be issued for late coming. Why? Because the misconduct is already on record. If a warning letter is not considered a punishment, why is it mentioned in the Act? The erring employee should not be asked to submit an explanation for the noticed error. This is what I meant by natural justice. Without seeking an explanation, if a warning letter is issued, will it stand if it is contested?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1. Sir, in warning letters, generally, the words are used to warn the employee regarding their conduct. If the employee who receives a warning letter wishes to challenge it, they can appeal to their superiors above the issuing authority. In such instances, it is up to the higher authority or the disciplinary authority to accept or reject the explanation provided. Employees often make numerous mistakes - whether minor or serious. Administrative authorities or the employer can issue a charge sheet addressing all such actions, whether minor or serious. Consequently, very few employees would risk displeasing their superiors by objecting to every single matter, including simple warning letters. An employee will always remain subject to the authority of their superiors, the disciplinary authority, or the employer, even when leveraging principles of natural justice. Hopefully, a sincere and conscientious employee understands and complies with these circumstances.
2. Generally, in cases where the content of warning letters is contested by the employee, if a mistake or misconduct is identified, the administrative authorities concerned initiate charge sheets or departmental actions. Ultimately, it is the employee themselves who bears the consequences.
3. I hope that this forum will also provide "a few citations of Hon'ble Court judgments (as also requested by Mr. Divekar) in support of his aforementioned comments so that we can update ourselves accordingly," as I have previously requested in my comments.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(3)Amend(0)
2. Generally, in cases where the content of warning letters is contested by the employee, if a mistake or misconduct is identified, the administrative authorities concerned initiate charge sheets or departmental actions. Ultimately, it is the employee themselves who bears the consequences.
3. I hope that this forum will also provide "a few citations of Hon'ble Court judgments (as also requested by Mr. Divekar) in support of his aforementioned comments so that we can update ourselves accordingly," as I have previously requested in my comments.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(3)Amend(0)
Respecting the well-considered views of the senior members Mr. Dinesh, Mr. Umakantan, and Mr. Harsh Kumar, I would try to bring my understanding of disciplinary action to bear on the issue under discussion. Shrikant's main contention is that since a warning is a penalty, it shall not be imposed without conducting a domestic inquiry. It is true that the Standing Orders enumerate "warning" or "censure" as a penalty for acts of misconduct. Normally, the Standing Orders distinguish between acts of minor misconduct and acts of major misconduct and prescribe penalties of minor nature and major nature proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. The penalty of "warning or censure" is prescribed for acts of minor misconduct or, as Mr. Umakantan said, for minor infractions of discipline.
The Standing Orders also, at the same time, grant discretion to the disciplinary authority to waive domestic inquiry if the misconduct is of minor nature and the penalty imposed is a warning or censure. The honorable Supreme Court in the Food Corporation of India vs. Sarat Chandra Goswami, 2014 LLR 785, held that an inquiry is not necessary for minor penalties. So it is not necessary to conduct in every case where a warning is imposed as a penalty since it is a minor penalty. What is required is that the delinquent employee be issued with a show-cause notice to explain his conduct. This would suffice to satisfy the principles of natural justice. However, the Standing Orders further say that if a workman has received three such warnings in the past for a particular act of minor misconduct but repeats it for the fourth time, it becomes a major misconduct, and the workman is liable for disciplinary action. Though a warning is technically a penalty under the Standing Orders, it is not considered a stigma for promotions, increments, or retirement benefits.
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Navi Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(4)Amend(0)
0
0
The Standing Orders also, at the same time, grant discretion to the disciplinary authority to waive domestic inquiry if the misconduct is of minor nature and the penalty imposed is a warning or censure. The honorable Supreme Court in the Food Corporation of India vs. Sarat Chandra Goswami, 2014 LLR 785, held that an inquiry is not necessary for minor penalties. So it is not necessary to conduct in every case where a warning is imposed as a penalty since it is a minor penalty. What is required is that the delinquent employee be issued with a show-cause notice to explain his conduct. This would suffice to satisfy the principles of natural justice. However, the Standing Orders further say that if a workman has received three such warnings in the past for a particular act of minor misconduct but repeats it for the fourth time, it becomes a major misconduct, and the workman is liable for disciplinary action. Though a warning is technically a penalty under the Standing Orders, it is not considered a stigma for promotions, increments, or retirement benefits.
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Navi Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(4)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-[The user's reply contains accurate information regarding the discretion of the disciplinary authority to waive domestic inquiry for minor penalties like warnings or censure, as supported by the Supreme Court judgement in Food Corporation of India vs. Sarat Chandra Goswami, 2014 LLR 785. The explanation provided aligns with the principles of natural justice and the distinction between minor and major misconduct in standing orders.] (1 Acknowledge point)
0
0
Gathering data for an AI comment.... Sending emails to relevant members...
Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Pf name & dob change letter format.doc
CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-The information provided in the user reply is accurate and aligns with the principles of natural justice in Central Govt. offices. No corrections needed. (1 Acknowledge point)