The matter is basically of promotion to an important position.
Promotion is a not a matter of right and the company may have its own criteria of who it will put in a particular position. If it wants someone of unimpeachable standing, the fact that he was caught by the police going to a prostitution joint (apparently pretending to be a spa), is definitely going to raise red flags.
Does the BVG Company need to investigate it?
According to me, no. They are only required to flag that they found such an incident, probably stating it was stayed or quashed. Then it is for the company to ask (or not ask) for explanation and for the employee to give a satisfactory reply.
In either case, the company is free not to give that particular position or not to even consider him for further promotion. It is not compulsory for him to have disclosed his 14 days in jail, but I dont think any company feels the need to actually put that clause. It may not be able to terminate him as it does not have evidence, but whether to give a particular promotion, is a different story and discretionary.
From India, Mumbai
2387Promotion is a not a matter of right and the company may have its own criteria of who it will put in a particular position. If it wants someone of unimpeachable standing, the fact that he was caught by the police going to a prostitution joint (apparently pretending to be a spa), is definitely going to raise red flags.
Does the BVG Company need to investigate it?
According to me, no. They are only required to flag that they found such an incident, probably stating it was stayed or quashed. Then it is for the company to ask (or not ask) for explanation and for the employee to give a satisfactory reply.
In either case, the company is free not to give that particular position or not to even consider him for further promotion. It is not compulsory for him to have disclosed his 14 days in jail, but I dont think any company feels the need to actually put that clause. It may not be able to terminate him as it does not have evidence, but whether to give a particular promotion, is a different story and discretionary.
From India, Mumbai
Going by the narrative there is some material on record of the employee concerned which cannot be erased. In the circumstances it's good for him to submit voluntarily a recital of the case and copies of all relevant docs, flag the HC's certified copy to clear the air. All said and done, if he's in good books he can as well favoured for the post otherwise it's very easy for the management to highlight the episode and bye-pass him in the promotion. Fingers crossed.
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Dear Mr Saswata Banerjee and Mr Kumar S,
Both of you have either alluded to or said that the employee in question may not be considered for promotion or may not be sent for the project.
Why the company should deny career advancement opportunities to the employee? What is his fault? We don't know, but police might have falsely implicated him. Why the police filed the FIR against him is anyone's guess. However, administrative decisions cannot be taken on guesses. Every decision must be backed by the evidence. The quashing of the FIR by the Hon'ble High Court establishes his innocence. The persons involved in making administrative decisions should not try to project their superiority over the Hon'ble High Court itself.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Both of you have either alluded to or said that the employee in question may not be considered for promotion or may not be sent for the project.
Why the company should deny career advancement opportunities to the employee? What is his fault? We don't know, but police might have falsely implicated him. Why the police filed the FIR against him is anyone's guess. However, administrative decisions cannot be taken on guesses. Every decision must be backed by the evidence. The quashing of the FIR by the Hon'ble High Court establishes his innocence. The persons involved in making administrative decisions should not try to project their superiority over the Hon'ble High Court itself.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
It's a very tricky situation to be in for sure. The reality is somewhat similar to what Mr Divekar points out. Upon looking at the case details, The police have registered in the case that the person(Ee) was the owner/renter of the building and received money as a spa owner. Both seem highly unlikely.
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Mr.Dinesh,
I have only posted my thoughts on the possibilities, that you also know, sure you would agree it's not my wish either. My fear was only, it's a fact that there has been criminal proceedings and it has come into records partly or in whatever measure. That being so, do you consider such a remark, irrespective of whether should be viewed on the merits of the case or not, could it be ignored. Atleast the competent authorities or HR should they not place it on records what has been brought out by the BGV. It's not for us to sit in judgment over the matter. But will it be possible for HR to ignore the remarks of BGV reported by an independent agency? Atleast they should point this out in their internal notes and conclude saying that the Hon'ble HC cleared him and he came out cleanly on a positive note. I'm not inclined go into the 'spa' episode that's a different issue altogether. I have no intention to either paint him innocent or doubt his integrity. But fact remains he didn't report such an important instance to the employer adequately, voluntarily. Contrarily, what happens now, so many things happened which came into record via a BGV only but not from the employee concerned, a preemptive, proactive, voluntary intimation/reporting should have done wonders in favour of the employee, that's my point here. Still I don't deny the HC ruled in his favour that's the fact, which he kept to himself, which if you think is personal and employer has nothing to do over the matter is a different perception, nothing wrong in it. That apart, employer is nobody to go into details or to investigate further into case or raise questions as to why police regd. FIR, why (should) they falsely implicated him, why they didn't go into depth etc. What's bothering them is the BGV report and how to deal with it. No problem if they chose to ignore it at the outset, imagine what would be the defence for HR in that case if some one raises this issue, why ignored when there is BGV report? Is't not the duty of the HR to bring it on record?
From India, Bangalore
I have only posted my thoughts on the possibilities, that you also know, sure you would agree it's not my wish either. My fear was only, it's a fact that there has been criminal proceedings and it has come into records partly or in whatever measure. That being so, do you consider such a remark, irrespective of whether should be viewed on the merits of the case or not, could it be ignored. Atleast the competent authorities or HR should they not place it on records what has been brought out by the BGV. It's not for us to sit in judgment over the matter. But will it be possible for HR to ignore the remarks of BGV reported by an independent agency? Atleast they should point this out in their internal notes and conclude saying that the Hon'ble HC cleared him and he came out cleanly on a positive note. I'm not inclined go into the 'spa' episode that's a different issue altogether. I have no intention to either paint him innocent or doubt his integrity. But fact remains he didn't report such an important instance to the employer adequately, voluntarily. Contrarily, what happens now, so many things happened which came into record via a BGV only but not from the employee concerned, a preemptive, proactive, voluntary intimation/reporting should have done wonders in favour of the employee, that's my point here. Still I don't deny the HC ruled in his favour that's the fact, which he kept to himself, which if you think is personal and employer has nothing to do over the matter is a different perception, nothing wrong in it. That apart, employer is nobody to go into details or to investigate further into case or raise questions as to why police regd. FIR, why (should) they falsely implicated him, why they didn't go into depth etc. What's bothering them is the BGV report and how to deal with it. No problem if they chose to ignore it at the outset, imagine what would be the defence for HR in that case if some one raises this issue, why ignored when there is BGV report? Is't not the duty of the HR to bring it on record?
From India, Bangalore
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.
Employee Appraisal Form new.doc