Charge sheet
jyoti
(Querist) 06 March 2014
This query is : Resolved
An official of SBI was suspended pending commencement of disciplinary proceeding. He was instructed not to leave HQ and prior permission should be obtained from the Bank.
There was an incentive programme for visiting Malaysia by SBIMF. He had got selected and the tour programme was approved by the Chairman of the Bank.SBI Mutual Fund arranged for VISA and he proceeded to Malaysia for a 4 day programme alongwith 140 officials
Bank has now chargesheeted him for not taking prior permission. Incidentally, the other officials serving the Bank and who had visited alongwith him has not sought such permission.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 06 March 2014
Such suspended person cannot take shelter of the other employee who had also not sought permission to leave station.
Charge-sheet shall have to be replied and defence can be taken that the Chairman had finalized the programme and even viisa was arranged therefrom so this was an implied permission of the ban.
jyoti
(Querist) 06 March 2014
The service rules say that the serving officials can not leave HQ without prior permission. Is the rule applicable differently and can not be treated as discrimination?
jyoti
(Querist) 06 March 2014
Right to equal treatment is violated
Guest
(Expert) 06 March 2014
Ms. Jyoti,
First and most important of all, your description about the case is not complete. You have not stated whether the tour program of the suspended employee was approved before or after his suspension? Secondly, you cannot equate the case of a suspended employee with other employees. Thirdly, once suspension order is issued and HQ of the suspended employee is fixed, he has to take specific permission of the disciplinary authority to leave the HQ, as per conduct, discipline and appeal rules of the employees in any organisation. Fourthly, the tour program of other officials, in itself is the official permission granted by the competent authority.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 07 March 2014
If he was going on official tour then how he can be treated as suspended.
first of all clear the facts as highlighted by Mr Dhingra and only then a worthwhile advise can be given
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 07 March 2014
Yes, I also put the same questions as Dhingraji has raised. Those are pertinent to reply your question.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 07 March 2014
Author, answer the questions raised by the expert PS Dhingra ji,
Further the author has not clarified whether the tour program was approved by Chairman for the total program or the approval contained the name of the officials to visit along with suspended official.
jyoti
(Querist) 07 March 2014
The tour was being conducted by SBI Mutual Fund for recognition of their work in 2012-13.The tour programme was approved just before suspension of the official or may be 3/4 days after.He was suspended on 19.09 and apprval is given on same month. A copy of the approval containing his name was sent to him in official e-mail.Visa was done by the SBIMF/Bank. Whether the approval by Chairman is not sufficient.As the tour programme was conducted on 3rd Week of Jan'14 whether the Chairman should have been informed about suspension and permission revoked. Whether going on a tour approved by Chairman is not sufficient ? The service rule of official says that all officers have to take prior permission before leaving HQ.Can it be only selectively applied to suspended officials?
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 07 March 2014
CS is wrongly given. Reply the charges and face the enquiry.
jyoti
(Querist) 07 March 2014
Can he ask for a copy of tour approval note? He was given a copy of tour dates and name of officials proposed to visit.
Guest
(Expert) 07 March 2014
From your statement, "the tour programme was approved just before suspension of the official or may be 3/4 days after," it clearly reveals that you are still not definite whether the tour program was approve before or after suspension of the official. However, if tour program was approved after suspension that can be construed as the official permission to leave HQ. But if that was approved prior to the date of suspension, that may not help. Permission in that case would have been necessary.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 07 March 2014
Ultimately, it is the management which has erred by not cancelling the suspended employee's tour program on time being in the knowledge of the impending proceedings against him and that he has been ordered specifically to not to leave headquarters. Though, the employee can be held partly responsible for this, the approval committee should have once again confirmed the list before the tour commenced.
jyoti
(Querist) 08 March 2014
It is exactly not known when the tour programme was approved bcz the note is not circulated.Only a leeter by the Corporate office was sent vide e-mail in Nov'13. Even if the tour programme was approved after suspension, they may claim that the Chairman was not aware of the suspension. But since considerable time gap was there between the approval and tour programme, Am I correct?
Should he pursue the agrument that no official has applied for permission for leaving the HQ though that is the rule for all officials?
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 08 March 2014
You are not able to given facts clearly. Better be enlightened about the facts and then make a query.
Based on what you said it appears that :-
(i)there was an official tour programme.
(ii) before commencement of tour he got suspended.
(iii) He despite suspension went on tour and may have claimed TA/DA as well.
In this case it is not a mere case of leaving HQ without permission. The charges against him need to be more serious which (notwithstanding charge for which suspended) itself may justify major penalty.
HE HAS PERFORMED OFFICIAL DUTY ILLEGALLY WHILE NOT AUTHORISED TO DO SO DURING SUSPENSION AND POSED AS UNSUSPENDED EMPLOYEE DURING THE TOUR.
jyoti
(Querist) 08 March 2014
Mr.Sudhir Kumar,
It was an educational tour programme conducted by SBI Mutual Fund for those who had mobilised business in 2012-13. Exact date of approval is awaited but it has happened either 4/5 days before or after suspension on 19.09.2013. The tour programme was approved by Chairman,SBI for 140 officials. It was purely a pleasure trip and no official work is involved.
SBIMF had arranged for Visa much after suspension and they had asked for passport through their e-mail in Nov'13.The tour took place on Jan'14.
No TA/DA has been paid though after explanation was called for he has asked for the TA to be paid recently.
A copy of letter stating about approval was sent to the official in his e-mail. He has been charge sheeted for leaving HQ without permission and not getting his tour programme approved. The question is once the tour programme has been approved by the Bank and Visa has been done much after suspension, whether HQ leaving permission and approval for tour programme is needed. The other officials have not got their tour programme approved individually.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 08 March 2014
Tour if approved by the chairman is totally valid and for it no charge-sheet can be issued or if issued is not serious.
However, it is seems that the tour was approved in the capacity SBIMF chairman which is separate co. other than SBI though subsidiary of SBI. You have visited in the program of SBIMF and not of SBI.
SBI is justified in issuing charge-sheet in such case when no permission to leave station was received.
Whether any inquiry date of previous charge-sheet was during such tour?
jyoti
(Querist) 08 March 2014
no such past instance is available. The tour was approved in the capacity of Chairman of SBI. SBIMF put up a request to Chairman,SBI for approval of the tour of 140 persons working in SBI in different cadres who had qualified during the fund mobilisation campaign in 2012-13. The Chairman had approved the tour. The exact date of approval is not known and is being ascertained. The only question is SBIMF was not aware of suspension during that material point of time. But the Bank management subsequently could have reversed the decision.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 08 March 2014
It is very clear from your facts that :-
(i) the cost of travel and stay has not been borne by him.
(ii) he accompanied the tour in official capacity.
(iii) he has hidden the fact of his suspension from SBI MF.
(iv) He as suspended employee has left HQ without permission of controlling authority on the assumption of having being allowed by chairman who approved tour.
(v) Be clear that from available facts it never appears that chairman was aware of suspended employee
(vi) There is no order of revocation of suspension from chairman.
There was no necessity of Bank having reversed the decision. When suspended is is no more expected (AND NOT EVEN ALLOWED) to perform any official duty.
During suspension he was not allowed to available hospitality on public cost.
There is a clear serious misconduct and Bank management is perhaps stupidly sticking to a petty allegation of leaving HQ without permission and neglecting a clear allegation of lack of integrity.
P. Venu
(Expert) 08 March 2014
Misconduct, essentially, implies dishonesty. It is for the employer to prove the charge.
jyoti
(Querist) 08 March 2014
Dear Sudhir Kumar,
The Chairman might not be aware of the suspension. But is it the duty of the suspended official to advise about his suspension? There were a gap of 3 months between the approval and journey.
SBIMF was not aware of the suspension. But is it the duty of the suspended official to advise? The letter had come to controlling authority on Nov'13. Was it not their duty to advise?
Guest
(Expert) 08 March 2014
Instead of stretching the thread too far, better collect full facts of the case. You will gain nothing by striking in the air. You should be aware of the fact that the person was the employee of the SBI, not the SBIMF.
jyoti
(Querist) 09 March 2014
Any other information needed
P. Venu
(Expert) 09 March 2014
Is this real query? Just having some fun!
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 09 March 2014
defend cs, no other option at present..
jyoti
(Querist) 09 March 2014
Shri P.Venu,
It is a real query from Kolkata. Can he defend cs on these grounds?
krishna mohan
(Expert) 11 March 2014
There appears to be violation of terms of suspension order viz. undertaking foreign tour without explicitly taking prior approval on the part of employee. Employees immediate reporting officer or controlling officer will also know of things of suspension as well as sponsorship for the tour programme. It looks it a contributory failure. Only course left open is to take defense of official authority issued to undertake foreign travel and consult a lawyer expert in service matters to help you rightly as employer could still insist that your tour is unauthorized specifically after invoking suspension.
jyoti
(Querist) 11 March 2014
Dear Mohan,
U r right. The engagement of advocate comes after the punishment. The approved tour programme was sent to controllers who had received in Dec'13 almost two month prior to the commencement of tour. The approving authority for visiting abroad is Chairman. Once he/she has approved it how can the tour programme of the suspended official be sent for a second approval?
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 11 March 2014
if there is disciplinary action he has a right to nominate any serving/retired Govt/PSU to argue on his behalf.
krishna mohan
(Expert) 13 March 2014
But the employee as per suspension order need to have sought permission specially. Equally the controlling officer must have informed about cancellation of approval. Only option open is to explain facts with the help of a lawyer as all future action is dependent on written explanation given during Inquiry.
Guest
(Expert) 13 March 2014
Ms. Jyoti,
Instead of asking the experts about, "Once he/she has approved it how can the tour programme of the suspended official be sent for a second approval," it would be better you cross-examine the listed witnesses in the issue. Approval of tour program by the chairman does not mean that the powers of the disciplinary authority gets suspended or curtailed or the rules of inquiry automatically stand abrogated.
There is no use in unnecessarily strething the thread too far, if you are unable to understand the rules on suspension and the process of disciplinary proceedings.
There is no other option except to effectively cross-examine the listed witnesses in defence of the case during departmental inquiry.
