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
From India, Kolkata
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
169From India, Hyderabad
You can't issue warning letter without conducting domestic enquiry. It is stigma on worker's record, the courts have ruled. issuing warning letter without following principle of natural justice is illegal. Instead of using the word 'warning' word 'caution' is better choice.
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Shrikant,
The thread was old, nevertheless, your reply has revived it.
You have written that "You can't issue warning letter without conducting domestic enquiry. It is stigma on worker's record, the courts have ruled. issuing warning letter without following principle of natural justice is illegal." If this were the case then would you mind to provide me the case law against your averment?
Issue of warning letter is common in private sector, public sector or government organisations. Most of the time, for the misconduct of the minor nature, warning letters are issued. If receiving warning letter were to be stigma, then it is the problem of the employee. He/she should have been thoughtful before conducting misconduct. It is not management's but employee's responsibility to keep his/her records neat and clean.
Coming to the original point of issue of warning letters for the minor misconduct. Take the example of shift in charge. He/she is resonsible to give proper brief to his/her reliever. Suppose if the shift in charge fails to do so 2-3 times and it created problems for the subsequent shift in charge. In that case should the management conduct enquiry and then issue the warning letter?
Going by your contention, each company needs to have a permanent legal cell where one will find couple of enquiries are in progress.
Adherence to principle of natural justice is of paramount importance. Nevertheless, domestic enquiries should also be conducted sparingly and reserved for the grave misconduct. Average employee, frowns at the enquiries or even to become witness. It lowers down the morale of the employees. Overdoes of enquiries could lead to employees becoming defiant and rather than accepting the fault with humility, they could start defending their positions and it could vitiate the work atmosphere. If few smart fellows start finding fault in the enquiries itself or try to turn the table against the Enquiry Officer (EO) or HR or management itself then how to handle this situation? Possibly these people could brag in their informal discussions about how they wriggled themselves out from enquiry and they could educate others on how to find the loopholes!
Overall objective of the enterprise is satisfy the customers and improve its competitiveness. However, this can best be done by creating a culture of fairness, justice etc. However, any kind of overdoing could make the whole exercise counterproductive. This other side cannot be ignored.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
The thread was old, nevertheless, your reply has revived it.
You have written that "You can't issue warning letter without conducting domestic enquiry. It is stigma on worker's record, the courts have ruled. issuing warning letter without following principle of natural justice is illegal." If this were the case then would you mind to provide me the case law against your averment?
Issue of warning letter is common in private sector, public sector or government organisations. Most of the time, for the misconduct of the minor nature, warning letters are issued. If receiving warning letter were to be stigma, then it is the problem of the employee. He/she should have been thoughtful before conducting misconduct. It is not management's but employee's responsibility to keep his/her records neat and clean.
Coming to the original point of issue of warning letters for the minor misconduct. Take the example of shift in charge. He/she is resonsible to give proper brief to his/her reliever. Suppose if the shift in charge fails to do so 2-3 times and it created problems for the subsequent shift in charge. In that case should the management conduct enquiry and then issue the warning letter?
Going by your contention, each company needs to have a permanent legal cell where one will find couple of enquiries are in progress.
Adherence to principle of natural justice is of paramount importance. Nevertheless, domestic enquiries should also be conducted sparingly and reserved for the grave misconduct. Average employee, frowns at the enquiries or even to become witness. It lowers down the morale of the employees. Overdoes of enquiries could lead to employees becoming defiant and rather than accepting the fault with humility, they could start defending their positions and it could vitiate the work atmosphere. If few smart fellows start finding fault in the enquiries itself or try to turn the table against the Enquiry Officer (EO) or HR or management itself then how to handle this situation? Possibly these people could brag in their informal discussions about how they wriggled themselves out from enquiry and they could educate others on how to find the loopholes!
Overall objective of the enterprise is satisfy the customers and improve its competitiveness. However, this can best be done by creating a culture of fairness, justice etc. However, any kind of overdoing could make the whole exercise counterproductive. This other side cannot be ignored.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
I fully endorse the views of Mr. Dinesh Divekar. In the first place warning is not a punishment., whether it is given in a pre-enquiry stage or post-enquiry depending upon the mitigating circumstance,if any. In case of minor infractions of the rules of discipline that can end up in minor punishments, the employer can exercise his discretion to let the delinquent employee with a mere warning. In such cases there is no necessity to conduct any domestic enquiry. Even in the case of any serious misconduct, if the employee admits his guilt on his own in unequivocal terms, there is no necessity to conduct any domestic enquiry. In as much as " warning" is a mere record of the employer's displeasure about the erring employee's particular conduct in a given situation and a note of caution to avoid it in future, it can not be treated as or equated with a punishment warranting the lengthy process of domestic enquiry. Like I said earlier, at times the alleged charges could not be proved in the enquiry for some technical reasons. In such a situation, in stead of complete exoneration, the employee can be let off with a warning if his employment position is that of a post of confidence. We should not compare and confuse this rare situation with misconducts of trivial nature. To bring out the effective results inextricably interwoven with employee morale in an organization, the disciplinary control machanism should be very progressive in which warning lies in the bottom line only. Therefore, in case of warning consequent on admission of guilt by the delinquent, there is no necessity of domestic enquiry.
From India, Salem
From India, Salem
(A). Sir, though I full agree with the views as expressed by seniors and experts particularly S/Sh.Dinesh Divekar ji & Umakanthan ji as above, I may submit for 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 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, admonition 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) 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) Warning is not a punishment......." Swami's Handbook as quoted above is authorised reference book on Central Govt. Employees Rules etc.
(B). Further in one of departmental Manual on Disciplinary action procedure, 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 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.
(C). In view of above, I feel that it will not be proper to conclude as " You can't issue warning letter without conducting domestic enquiry. It is stigma on worker's record, the courts have ruled. issuing warning letter without following principle of natural justice is illegal " as mentioned by Mr.Shrikant_Pra as above. Hope Mr. Shrikant will refer his post as above and will guide us and intimate 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 up-date ourselves accordingly.
From India, Noida
"(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, admonition 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) 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) Warning is not a punishment......." Swami's Handbook as quoted above is authorised reference book on Central Govt. Employees Rules etc.
(B). Further in one of departmental Manual on Disciplinary action procedure, 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 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.
(C). In view of above, I feel that it will not be proper to conclude as " You can't issue warning letter without conducting domestic enquiry. It is stigma on worker's record, the courts have ruled. issuing warning letter without following principle of natural justice is illegal " as mentioned by Mr.Shrikant_Pra as above. Hope Mr. Shrikant will refer his post as above and will guide us and intimate 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 up-date ourselves accordingly.
From India, Noida
As per the standing orders act, warning can be issued for late coming. Why? Because the misconduct is already on records. If warning letter is not punishment why is it mentioned in the Act? The erring employee should not be asked to submit explanation for the noticed error? This is what I meant natural justice. Without seeking explanation if warning letter is issued then will it stand if it is contested?
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
1. Sir, in warning letters generally the words are used to warn the employee in respect of his conduct. If the employee to whom warning letter is issued, want to challenge the issue of warning letter to him, he can do so to his authorities higher than the authority who issued such warning letters. In such cases, it is upto such higher authority or the disciplinary authority to accept his explanation or not. Generally employees make so many mistakes -minor or serious mistakes. Administrative authorities/employer can issue him charge sheet in respect of all such actions minor or serious and therefore, there is hardly any employee who will like to displease his higher authorities by objecting to every think even to simple warning letters. Employee will always be an employee and by taking the advantage of principles of natural justice, he cannot object to or surpass his higher authorities/disciplinary authority or employer. Hope, a sincere and good employee knows and comply with the situations.
2. Generally in such cases, where the contents of warning letters are objected to or challenged by the employee, in case it is found that there was mistake or misconduct, charge sheets/departmental actions are initiated by the administrative authorities concerned. Therefore, it is the employee himself/herself who is to suffer in the last.
3. I hope, you will also intimate this forum about "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 up-date ourselves accordingly" as I have requested in my comments earlier.
From India, Noida
2. Generally in such cases, where the contents of warning letters are objected to or challenged by the employee, in case it is found that there was mistake or misconduct, charge sheets/departmental actions are initiated by the administrative authorities concerned. Therefore, it is the employee himself/herself who is to suffer in the last.
3. I hope, you will also intimate this forum about "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 up-date ourselves accordingly" as I have requested in my comments earlier.
From India, Noida
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 the discussion. Shrikant's main contention is that since warning is a penalty, it shall not be imposed without conducting 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 warning or censure.The hon'ble Supreme Court in the Food Corporation of India vs. Sarat Chandra Goswami, 2014 LLR 785 held that inquiry is not necessary for minor penalties. So it is not necessary to conduct in every case where warning is imposed as 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 warning is technically a penalty u/standing orders, it is not considered as stigma either for promotions or increments or retirement befits..
B.Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Navi Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
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 warning or censure.The hon'ble Supreme Court in the Food Corporation of India vs. Sarat Chandra Goswami, 2014 LLR 785 held that inquiry is not necessary for minor penalties. So it is not necessary to conduct in every case where warning is imposed as 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 warning is technically a penalty u/standing orders, it is not considered as stigma either for promotions or increments or retirement befits..
B.Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Navi Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Pf name & dob change letter format.doc