One employee's performance is not satisfactory to management. He holds the position of DGM HR. His behavior is poor, as he misuses transportation and misappropriates funds. Therefore, I need to issue a warning letter before proceeding with his termination. Kindly provide a draft of the letter.
Thank you.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
2Thank you.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Barani,
Whenever any employee strays from the path of discipline, it is HR that steps in and restores discipline. In your case, it is the DGM HR who is engaged in misconduct. In that case, this is nothing but "fence eating the crop"!
Before the issuance of a warning letter or termination, you need to conduct a domestic enquiry. Misuse of transport facility or embezzlement of funds are serious offenses and cannot be simply handled by the issuance of a warning letter.
Please note that the individual in question is from HR. While many in HR may not be familiar with procedures to handle employee misconduct, he may be an exception. He may not know the complete procedure, but could be resourceful enough to identify loopholes in the system. Therefore, in this case, you need to exercise great caution to prevent him from turning the tables against you!
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Whenever any employee strays from the path of discipline, it is HR that steps in and restores discipline. In your case, it is the DGM HR who is engaged in misconduct. In that case, this is nothing but "fence eating the crop"!
Before the issuance of a warning letter or termination, you need to conduct a domestic enquiry. Misuse of transport facility or embezzlement of funds are serious offenses and cannot be simply handled by the issuance of a warning letter.
Please note that the individual in question is from HR. While many in HR may not be familiar with procedures to handle employee misconduct, he may be an exception. He may not know the complete procedure, but could be resourceful enough to identify loopholes in the system. Therefore, in this case, you need to exercise great caution to prevent him from turning the tables against you!
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Barani,
Mr. Divekar is absolutely right. Unless you follow the proper procedure, it may boomerang on you. The first step is to ensure you have irrefutable proof of any misdeeds. Then proceed with a domestic enquiry. You can find plenty of material on how to conduct the enquiry on this site itself. Just ensure that the proper procedure is followed.
I am quite sure that when the person realizes you have sufficient proof, he will likely come forward and offer to resign. If that happens, make sure to obtain a written statement from him admitting to the offenses and then terminate his services. Additionally, in that scenario, he will not be eligible for any gratuity if your organization has provisions for it.
Best of luck
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Mr. Divekar is absolutely right. Unless you follow the proper procedure, it may boomerang on you. The first step is to ensure you have irrefutable proof of any misdeeds. Then proceed with a domestic enquiry. You can find plenty of material on how to conduct the enquiry on this site itself. Just ensure that the proper procedure is followed.
I am quite sure that when the person realizes you have sufficient proof, he will likely come forward and offer to resign. If that happens, make sure to obtain a written statement from him admitting to the offenses and then terminate his services. Additionally, in that scenario, he will not be eligible for any gratuity if your organization has provisions for it.
Best of luck
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am not entirely in agreement with the views expressed. If there is clinching evidence of misconduct by a person at the level of DGM-HR, just terminate their service forthwith. There is no need to hold any inquiry.
Regards,
VL. Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regards,
VL. Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Depending on the nature or gravity of misconduct and existing evidence, you may terminate the DGM (assuming that he will not fall within the category of 'workman' under the ID Act) directly without holding a domestic enquiry. But as an abundance of caution, it is always advisable to conduct a domestic enquiry before taking action against an employee.
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. V. L. Nagarkar,
If the company has incontrovertible evidence of corruption or misuse/abuse of authority, then the company can terminate the DGM even without conducting the domestic inquiry. Nevertheless, going beyond the law, let us look from the management science perspective.
An employee could file a suit even if the domestic inquiry was conducted. Nevertheless, if the inquiry was free and fair, then courts generally do not intervene and dismiss the petition. If the inquiry is not conducted, then the company has to prove compelling reasons for termination even without the inquiry. What if the lawyer fails to convince the judge on merits of doing so? Court judgments also depend on the forcefulness with which the lawyers plead their cases. Lack of proper argument has the risk of setting aside termination with payment of back wages.
Conducting the domestic inquiry is a great tool of time management. Yes, the inquiry itself is time-consuming; however, it acts as a deterrence to the aggrieved employee from going to litigation. Not all lawyers take the cases that come to them. They also examine the merits of the case. Therefore, conducting a domestic inquiry helps companies avoid time spent in litigation and payment of fees to the lawyer. Even if the case comes to a hearing, it helps in early disposal and avoids time and money spent on lengthy hearings.
By conducting the domestic inquiry, management sends a signal to everyone that environmental justice prevails in the company. A culture of fairness and justice motivates the employees.
The lone terrorist who survived the 26/11 attack in Mumbai was prosecuted, and the court case went on for years. Material evidence of all sorts was available against him. Yet, our courts gave him a patient hearing, and he was awarded punishment after a lot of deliberations. Time spent in such cases apart, India earned esteem from other democratic countries for upholding the principles of natural justice.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If the company has incontrovertible evidence of corruption or misuse/abuse of authority, then the company can terminate the DGM even without conducting the domestic inquiry. Nevertheless, going beyond the law, let us look from the management science perspective.
An employee could file a suit even if the domestic inquiry was conducted. Nevertheless, if the inquiry was free and fair, then courts generally do not intervene and dismiss the petition. If the inquiry is not conducted, then the company has to prove compelling reasons for termination even without the inquiry. What if the lawyer fails to convince the judge on merits of doing so? Court judgments also depend on the forcefulness with which the lawyers plead their cases. Lack of proper argument has the risk of setting aside termination with payment of back wages.
Conducting the domestic inquiry is a great tool of time management. Yes, the inquiry itself is time-consuming; however, it acts as a deterrence to the aggrieved employee from going to litigation. Not all lawyers take the cases that come to them. They also examine the merits of the case. Therefore, conducting a domestic inquiry helps companies avoid time spent in litigation and payment of fees to the lawyer. Even if the case comes to a hearing, it helps in early disposal and avoids time and money spent on lengthy hearings.
By conducting the domestic inquiry, management sends a signal to everyone that environmental justice prevails in the company. A culture of fairness and justice motivates the employees.
The lone terrorist who survived the 26/11 attack in Mumbai was prosecuted, and the court case went on for years. Material evidence of all sorts was available against him. Yet, our courts gave him a patient hearing, and he was awarded punishment after a lot of deliberations. Time spent in such cases apart, India earned esteem from other democratic countries for upholding the principles of natural justice.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
First, refer to the "Service Rules" applicable to DGM-HR. He does not come under the definition of "Employee" as per Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Issue a Charge Sheet/Show cause Notice leveling Charges of Misconduct/Misappropriation. Give sufficient time for him to provide his explanation. Based on his Explanation and preliminary Enquiry, initiate the appropriate further course of action.
You can also explore action based on his appointment letter Termination Clause.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Issue a Charge Sheet/Show cause Notice leveling Charges of Misconduct/Misappropriation. Give sufficient time for him to provide his explanation. Based on his Explanation and preliminary Enquiry, initiate the appropriate further course of action.
You can also explore action based on his appointment letter Termination Clause.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Mr. Divakar,
Your comments in the first paragraph are no different from mine. The other parts of your learned observations deal with the post-termination scenario.
In my view, when you have clear evidence against the DGM-HR, who is very likely a non-workman, there is no need to conduct a domestic inquiry. He can be confronted with the facts of misconduct in an informal meeting. If he accepts, give him a fair chance to resign or terminate him.
Regards,
V.L. Nagarkar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Your comments in the first paragraph are no different from mine. The other parts of your learned observations deal with the post-termination scenario.
In my view, when you have clear evidence against the DGM-HR, who is very likely a non-workman, there is no need to conduct a domestic inquiry. He can be confronted with the facts of misconduct in an informal meeting. If he accepts, give him a fair chance to resign or terminate him.
Regards,
V.L. Nagarkar
From India, Mumbai
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.
WARNING LETTER FOR ABSENCE.doc