Dear Seniors,
If any employee does any act which amounts as a misconduct as per standing orders. If the deliquent employee accepts his/her mistake then for how many " Maximum "days we can suspend him/ her without payment legally???
Is there is any support to the action of management as per such " Suspension "any Act or Section???
From India, Pune
46If any employee does any act which amounts as a misconduct as per standing orders. If the deliquent employee accepts his/her mistake then for how many " Maximum "days we can suspend him/ her without payment legally???
Is there is any support to the action of management as per such " Suspension "any Act or Section???
From India, Pune
Dear prashant1314
I am happy to note that you understand, as evident in your post, the difference between "suspension pending enquiry" and "suspension as punishment".
Now, Suspension as punishment, is generally awarded for Minor Misconducts which are minor infractions and does not involve any moral turpitude or any severe misconduct; such as habitual late coming, unauthorised absence etc.
Although, I do not have any factual data across industries; generally it ranges from two days to maximum a week.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
I am happy to note that you understand, as evident in your post, the difference between "suspension pending enquiry" and "suspension as punishment".
Now, Suspension as punishment, is generally awarded for Minor Misconducts which are minor infractions and does not involve any moral turpitude or any severe misconduct; such as habitual late coming, unauthorised absence etc.
Although, I do not have any factual data across industries; generally it ranges from two days to maximum a week.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Dear Seniors,
If we punish any employee under misconduct then is that " Punishment - Suspension " is deemed as Break in service then where is this break has to be mentioned or being used for official purpose???
Thanks in advance!!!
From India, Pune
If we punish any employee under misconduct then is that " Punishment - Suspension " is deemed as Break in service then where is this break has to be mentioned or being used for official purpose???
Thanks in advance!!!
From India, Pune
Dear Prashant,
Once you decided to make break in service, you have to make F&F and then make him to rejoin. But for a misconduct you can make suspension for certain period, and can get letter from him.
On your situation you may decide.
With regds,
flyingstarter.
From India, Madras
Once you decided to make break in service, you have to make F&F and then make him to rejoin. But for a misconduct you can make suspension for certain period, and can get letter from him.
On your situation you may decide.
With regds,
flyingstarter.
From India, Madras
Dear prashant1314
When an employee is awarded the punishment of "suspension" (for an specified number of days); it is to be considered simply as a 'punishment' and there should not be any though or attempt to consider it as affecting the continuity of service (in fact by undergoing punishment affirms that the employee is very much in service).
Thus, it is NOT a break in service.
Hope I have made the point amply clear.
One can, however, record this punishment awarded, in the service book/personnel file/employee database, for future reference.
Warm regards.
P.S. I am consolidating your two separate threads on the subject, by merging them, for easy reference by members.
From India, Delhi
When an employee is awarded the punishment of "suspension" (for an specified number of days); it is to be considered simply as a 'punishment' and there should not be any though or attempt to consider it as affecting the continuity of service (in fact by undergoing punishment affirms that the employee is very much in service).
Thus, it is NOT a break in service.
Hope I have made the point amply clear.
One can, however, record this punishment awarded, in the service book/personnel file/employee database, for future reference.
Warm regards.
P.S. I am consolidating your two separate threads on the subject, by merging them, for easy reference by members.
From India, Delhi
Dear Raj Kumar,
I would like to differ with your opinion in so far as the terms "suspension as punishment" and "awarded for minor misconducts" are concerned.
In fact suspension is neither treated as a punishment, nor is awarded for the minor misconduct. Suspension is not resorted to unless there is a valid reason that the employee has made a serious misconduct that is considered worth the award of a major penalty and requires issue of a Charge Sheet for the purpose of a full fledged departmental inquiry to justify some major penalty. Suspension is resorted to when he is expected to manipulate the inquiry, tamper records or is likely to destroy the evidence against him, if he is allowed to work on his position. If no charge sheet is issued, the suspension is treated as invalid and will have to be treated as duty for all purposes.
As such an employe can be placed under suspnsion:
(a) when a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or pending against him;
(b) where, in the position of authority competent to suspend, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of security of the state/organisation; or
(c) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.
As held in Mohd. Azam v. State of A.P., AIR 1956 A.P. 619, "Suspension" has been defined as temporary deprivation of one's office or position.
Further, as held in Mohd. Ghouse v. State of A.P., AIR 1957 SC 246: 1957 SCR 414 and Kem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 687: (1963) Sup. I. SCR 229, Suspension pending a departmental or judicial proceedings against an employee is NOT A PENALTY.
As held in Abullais Khan v. State of West Bengal, GB CB (1986)II p.44; (19862 ATR 97: SLJ (19862 CAT 134, suspension is not justified when there is no risk of tampering with documents.
As held in Balwantray Patel v. State of M.P., AIR 1968 SC 800: (1968) SCR 577, "The general law on the subject of suspension has been laid down in three cases viz., the management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers' Union (1960) SCR 476; T. Caje v. U. Jormanik Siem (1961) SCR 750 and R.P. Kapoor v. Union of India (1964)5 SCR 431, it is now well settled that the power to suspend, in the sense of a right to forbid a servant to work, is not an implied term in an ordinary contract between master & servant and that such a power can only be the creative of either of a statute governing the contract, or of an express term in the contract itself. Ordinarily, therefore, the absence of power either as an express term in the contract or in the rules framed under some statute would mean that the master would have no power to suspend a workman and even if he does so in the sense that he forbids the employee to work, HE SHALL HAVE TO PAY WAGES DURING THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION.
PS Dhingra
Management & Vigilance Consultant
Dhingra Group of Consultants
New Delhi
09968076381
[dcgroup1962@gmail.com]
From India, Delhi
I would like to differ with your opinion in so far as the terms "suspension as punishment" and "awarded for minor misconducts" are concerned.
In fact suspension is neither treated as a punishment, nor is awarded for the minor misconduct. Suspension is not resorted to unless there is a valid reason that the employee has made a serious misconduct that is considered worth the award of a major penalty and requires issue of a Charge Sheet for the purpose of a full fledged departmental inquiry to justify some major penalty. Suspension is resorted to when he is expected to manipulate the inquiry, tamper records or is likely to destroy the evidence against him, if he is allowed to work on his position. If no charge sheet is issued, the suspension is treated as invalid and will have to be treated as duty for all purposes.
As such an employe can be placed under suspnsion:
(a) when a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or pending against him;
(b) where, in the position of authority competent to suspend, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of security of the state/organisation; or
(c) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.
As held in Mohd. Azam v. State of A.P., AIR 1956 A.P. 619, "Suspension" has been defined as temporary deprivation of one's office or position.
Further, as held in Mohd. Ghouse v. State of A.P., AIR 1957 SC 246: 1957 SCR 414 and Kem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 687: (1963) Sup. I. SCR 229, Suspension pending a departmental or judicial proceedings against an employee is NOT A PENALTY.
As held in Abullais Khan v. State of West Bengal, GB CB (1986)II p.44; (19862 ATR 97: SLJ (19862 CAT 134, suspension is not justified when there is no risk of tampering with documents.
As held in Balwantray Patel v. State of M.P., AIR 1968 SC 800: (1968) SCR 577, "The general law on the subject of suspension has been laid down in three cases viz., the management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers' Union (1960) SCR 476; T. Caje v. U. Jormanik Siem (1961) SCR 750 and R.P. Kapoor v. Union of India (1964)5 SCR 431, it is now well settled that the power to suspend, in the sense of a right to forbid a servant to work, is not an implied term in an ordinary contract between master & servant and that such a power can only be the creative of either of a statute governing the contract, or of an express term in the contract itself. Ordinarily, therefore, the absence of power either as an express term in the contract or in the rules framed under some statute would mean that the master would have no power to suspend a workman and even if he does so in the sense that he forbids the employee to work, HE SHALL HAVE TO PAY WAGES DURING THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION.
PS Dhingra
Management & Vigilance Consultant
Dhingra Group of Consultants
New Delhi
09968076381
[dcgroup1962@gmail.com]
From India, Delhi
Dear Prashant,
Your brief version does not provide clear picture of the case. The disciplinary matters being of sensitive nature, any opinion in such cases can easily mislead you if you do not provide necessary information. You have not stated whether the employee admitted his fault on service of a simple notice or after serving him with a charge sheet. You have also not stated whether the employe was already suspended or you intend to suspend him now after admission of his guilt.
However, for your information it may be clarified that suspension cannot be made with retrospective effect, unless it is a deemed suspension on account of the employee having been held in police custody in some criminal case. As held in Hemanta Kumar v. S.N. Mukherjee, AIR 1954 Cal. 340, "there can be no meaning in suspending a man from working during a period when the period is passed and he has already worked or suspending a man from occupying a position or holding a privilege in the past when he has already occupied or held it."
Further, when the employee has already admitted his mistake merely on issue of a simple notice (other than a charge sheet), you can either issue him a warning letter to be careful in future or, if the misconduct is of a serious nature, you can issue him with a charge sheet for proper conduct of a disciplinary action for the purpose of award of a suitable penalty. Suspension is not treated as a penaly. However, if he has admitted his guilt on issue of a charge sheet, you can award a suitable penalty, as may have been prescibed in the Conduct and Discipline Rules of your organization.
For further information you may also refer to my previous post in response to the opinion of Mr. Raj Kumar Hansdah.
PS Dhingra
Management & Vigilance Consultant
Dhingra Group of Consultants
New Delhi
09968076381
[dcgroup1962@gmail.com]
more at http://citehr.com#ixzz17UzGE7BQ
From India, Delhi
Your brief version does not provide clear picture of the case. The disciplinary matters being of sensitive nature, any opinion in such cases can easily mislead you if you do not provide necessary information. You have not stated whether the employee admitted his fault on service of a simple notice or after serving him with a charge sheet. You have also not stated whether the employe was already suspended or you intend to suspend him now after admission of his guilt.
However, for your information it may be clarified that suspension cannot be made with retrospective effect, unless it is a deemed suspension on account of the employee having been held in police custody in some criminal case. As held in Hemanta Kumar v. S.N. Mukherjee, AIR 1954 Cal. 340, "there can be no meaning in suspending a man from working during a period when the period is passed and he has already worked or suspending a man from occupying a position or holding a privilege in the past when he has already occupied or held it."
Further, when the employee has already admitted his mistake merely on issue of a simple notice (other than a charge sheet), you can either issue him a warning letter to be careful in future or, if the misconduct is of a serious nature, you can issue him with a charge sheet for proper conduct of a disciplinary action for the purpose of award of a suitable penalty. Suspension is not treated as a penaly. However, if he has admitted his guilt on issue of a charge sheet, you can award a suitable penalty, as may have been prescibed in the Conduct and Discipline Rules of your organization.
For further information you may also refer to my previous post in response to the opinion of Mr. Raj Kumar Hansdah.
PS Dhingra
Management & Vigilance Consultant
Dhingra Group of Consultants
New Delhi
09968076381
[dcgroup1962@gmail.com]
more at http://citehr.com#ixzz17UzGE7BQ
From India, Delhi
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.
Prolonged Suspension of the employee.docx