Disciplinary case
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 24 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
Sir,
one employee was reverted for three years,meantime having chargesheeted for absenteism, he was compulsorily retired in lower grade. Is it legally correct if not any supreme court citation please quote.
Satya Mani Tiwari
(Expert) 24 October 2011
It is not legally correct but solution is to challenge the matter in court.
Guest
(Expert) 24 October 2011
Please state if he was charge sheeted again while working on lower post, or was compulsorily retired on account of the same original charge sheet?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 25 October 2011
A clarification as sought by Dhingra ji is needed.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 25 October 2011
Compulsorily retirement refers his ouster from service whereas you are telling that he was reverted to lower post. Reversion on the basis of charge-sheet and enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing is legal and justified.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 25 October 2011
Respected Dhingra Sir's query below mentioned is detail
1.Employee was three years reversion in a Discipl. case after due process of law.
2.Before finishing of 3 yrs. reversion in lower grade , again he was taken up for absenteism in another discpl.case,was compulsory retired while working in a lower grade.
My doubt is, staff could have completed first punishment of lower grade reversion to original grade, and after that he could have been compulsory retired of his original grade, so is there any illegality & if so, any Apex court ruling or otherwise.
Thanks for high valued legal opinion.
Guest
(Expert) 26 October 2011
Dear anonymous,
There is no bar on another penalty to be imposed on account of another indiscipline when one penalty is already going on.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 26 October 2011
You may be surprised to know that these theories of punishment for fault of employees are based and studied as models of economics,
where you are finding it unjustified as your compensation stood considerably reduced,while
employer did it for its own benefit as cost cutting and increasing profit are the sole objective there.
Guest
(Expert) 26 October 2011
Prabhakar ji,
The HR wing dealing with the disciplinary cases does not have any expertise on economics and the indiscipline of employee does not have any bearing on economics. On the other hand almost all the disciplinary authorities are non-economists. So, had the penalties been related to economy, the organisations would never resort to suspension of employee, which costs the employer from 50% to 75% of salary of the employee without getting any work from the employee.
In fact when indiscipline of the employee becomes totally intolerable, the employer thinks of getting rid of such indisciplined employee, so that he may not prove as an instance of spreading indiscipline amongst the other employees.
On the other hand, the employer has also to recruit some other employee against the retired employee to handle the job of the employee removed from service. That way, the employer becomes liable to pay not only the salary of the newly recruited employee, but also the pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits, which instance is totally against the laws of economics.
K.S.Srinivas
(Expert) 28 October 2011
I totally agree with Mr.Dhingra.
