Thank you, Shrivastava Sir and Umakanthan Sir, for your valuable response. Currently, the employee has been suspended for the last 3 months. The employee has provided all the necessary proofs and has cooperated with the inquiry process. The allegations raised during the domestic inquiry were proven false against the inquiry officer; however, HR is unwilling to revoke the suspension. The employee holds an Officer Grade position. It appears that HR has personal issues with the employee and is biased in favor of supporting the manager.
The employee is being harassed by the manager through false reporting to the Higher Management. Following the employee's last response, the employer has credited 50% of the salary. However, in the show cause notice, the employee is accused of misconduct, and the salary slip indicates the employee as absent for all working days.
Can the employee inquire about the final conclusion of the inquiry, which has been pending for almost 2 months? It seems that HR is reluctant to close the matter. Additionally, HR is communicating without including Higher Management in the correspondence.
I seek your advice on how to proceed further.
From India, Nadiad
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
The employee is being harassed by the manager through false reporting to the Higher Management. Following the employee's last response, the employer has credited 50% of the salary. However, in the show cause notice, the employee is accused of misconduct, and the salary slip indicates the employee as absent for all working days.
Can the employee inquire about the final conclusion of the inquiry, which has been pending for almost 2 months? It seems that HR is reluctant to close the matter. Additionally, HR is communicating without including Higher Management in the correspondence.
I seek your advice on how to proceed further.
From India, Nadiad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Pune HR,
If the delinquent employee is an officer with supervisory responsibilities and drawing a monthly salary above Rs. 10,000, he will not be considered a "workman" and therefore would not be covered by the rules of discipline set forth in the Standing Orders applicable to the establishment. On the other hand, he would be covered by the service regulations, if any, relating to disciplinary control or the terms of his employment contract as the case may be. However, this does not imply that any lapses noticed in the disciplinary procedure adopted by the employer in the case of an employee who is beyond the purview of the Standing Orders are not serious enough to violate the principles of natural justice and cannot be questioned at all; on the contrary, such a serious procedural lapse can vitiate the entire proceedings in a later judicial scrutiny.
In the case you mentioned, I am unsure why the HR is being blamed - whether the HR person is the designated disciplinary authority. If the delinquent employee believes that the HR is acting unfairly due to personal animosity or indifference, I believe nothing should prevent them from approaching the disciplinary authority for prompt resolution of the matter or immediate revocation of suspension pending final orders as deemed appropriate. Indefinitely keeping an employee under suspension solely because they are receiving subsistence allowance could be seen as an act of victimization. It would be advisable for the employee to politely bring this issue to the attention of the top management.
Thank you.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
6185If the delinquent employee is an officer with supervisory responsibilities and drawing a monthly salary above Rs. 10,000, he will not be considered a "workman" and therefore would not be covered by the rules of discipline set forth in the Standing Orders applicable to the establishment. On the other hand, he would be covered by the service regulations, if any, relating to disciplinary control or the terms of his employment contract as the case may be. However, this does not imply that any lapses noticed in the disciplinary procedure adopted by the employer in the case of an employee who is beyond the purview of the Standing Orders are not serious enough to violate the principles of natural justice and cannot be questioned at all; on the contrary, such a serious procedural lapse can vitiate the entire proceedings in a later judicial scrutiny.
In the case you mentioned, I am unsure why the HR is being blamed - whether the HR person is the designated disciplinary authority. If the delinquent employee believes that the HR is acting unfairly due to personal animosity or indifference, I believe nothing should prevent them from approaching the disciplinary authority for prompt resolution of the matter or immediate revocation of suspension pending final orders as deemed appropriate. Indefinitely keeping an employee under suspension solely because they are receiving subsistence allowance could be seen as an act of victimization. It would be advisable for the employee to politely bring this issue to the attention of the top management.
Thank you.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
Increment during suspension period.PDF
Minimum Wages in Maharashtra for the period January 2018 to June 2018.xls
Appointment Letter to an Employee for fixed period.doc