Factors to Consider when Disciplining
Before we review disciplinary guidelines, we should take at the major factors that need to be considered if we are to have fair and equitable disciplinary practices.
The following seven contingency factors can help us analyze a discipline problem:
1. Seriousness of the problem.
How severe is the problem? As noted previously, dishonesty is usually considered a more serious infraction than reporting to work 20 minutes late.
2. Duration of problem.
Have there been other discipline problems in the past, and over how long a time span? The violation dies not take place in a vacuum. A first occurrence is usually viewed differently than a third or fourth offense.
3. Frequency and mature of the problem.
Is the current problems part of an emerging or continuing pattern of disciplinary infractions? We are continual with not only the duration but also the pattern of the problem. Continual infractions may require but also the pattern of the problem. Continual infractions may require a different type of discipline from that applied to isolated instances of misconduct. They may also point out a situation that demands far more sever discipline in order to prevent a minor problem demands far more severe discipline in order to prevent a minor problem from becoming a major one.
4. Extenuating Factors.
Are there extenuating circumstances related to the problem? The employee who fails to complete his/her office task in time because of here ill health is likely to have her violation assessed more leniently, than her peer who missed the deadline because he overslept.
5. Degree of socialization.
To what extent has management made an earlier effort to educate the person causing the problem about the existing rules and procedures and the consequences of knowledge that the violator holds of the organization’s standards of acceptable behavior. In contrast to the previous item, the new employee is less likely to have been socialized to these standards than the 20-year veteran. Additionally, the organization that has formalized, written rules governing employee conduct is more justified in aggressively enforcing
6. Violations of these rules than is the organization whose rules are informal or vague.
History of the Organization’s Discipline practices. How have similar infractions been dealt with in the past within the department? Within the entire organizations? Has there been consistency in the application of discipline procedures? Equitable treatment of employees must take into consideration precedents within the unit where the infraction occurs, as well as previous disciplinary actions taken in other units within the organization. ? Equity demands consistency against some relevant benchmark.
7. Management Backing.
If employees decide to take their case to a higher level in management, will you have reasonable evidence to justify your decision? Should the employee challenge your disciplinary action, it is important that you have the data to back up the necessity and equity of the action taken and that you feel confident that management will support your decision. No disciplinary action is likely to carry much weight if violators believe that they can challenge and successfully override their manager’s decision.
How can these seven items help? Consider that there are many reasons for why we might discipline an employee. With little difficulty, we could list several dozen or more infraction that management might believe require disciplinary action. For simplicity’s sake, we have classified the most frequent violations into four categories: attendance, on-the- job behaviors, dishonesty, and on the job behavior.
Attendance like: Unexcused absence, chronic absenteeism, leaving without permission
Work Performance problems can include action like not completing work assignments, producing substandard products or services not meeting established production requirements
Dishonesty and Related Problems like, Theft, Falsifying employment application, Willfully damaging organizational property, Punching another employee’s time card, Falsifying work records
On-the-job Behaviors like: Insubordination ,Smoking in unauthorized places, Fighting, Gambling, Failure to use safety devices, Failure to report injuries, Carelessness, Sleeping on the job, Using abusive or threatening language with supervisors, Possession of narcotics or alcohol, Possession of firearms or other weapons, Sexual harassment.
Infractions may be minor or serious given the situation or the industry in which one works. For example, while concealing defective work in a hand –power tool assembly line may be viewed as minor, the same action in an aerospace manufacturing plant is more serious. Furthermore, recurrence and severity of the infraction will play a role. For instance, employees who experience their first minor offense might generally
expect a minor reprimand. A second offense might result in a more stringent reprimand, and so forth. In contrast, the first occurrence of a serious offense might mean not being allowed to return to work, the length of time being dependent on the circumstances surrounding the violation.
Merely because the employee was acquitted by the criminal court it does not mean, ipso-facto that he is entitled to be reinstated in service, since he was dismissed from service after facing a disciplinary proceeding. - Supreme Court of India
- Read Judgement Below
Criminal and departmental, are entirely different and merely because one has been acquitted in a criminal trial that itself will not result in the reinstatement in service when one has been found guilty in a departmental proceeding .
Facts of the case-
Respondent was posted at the Police Station Mania, District Dholpur (Rajasthan), he allegedly committed a criminal offence, apart from an act of gross indiscipline. The Trial Court then convicts Phool Singh, under Section 392 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act and sentences him for one-year rigorous imprisonment and fine for each of the above two offences and a departmental proceeding had also been initiated against the delinquent constable on three charges. (1) he had consumed alcohol in the incident (2) indecently abused a person and demanded for a bribe of Rs.100/-, (3) with his gun fired at public which was chasing him. All the three charges were ultimately proved against the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings and he was dismissed from service . respondent was convicted by the Trial Court and in appeal the Appellate Court only acquitted him by giving him a “benefit of doubt”.
Court held that-
The court relied upon the case Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd (2005) 7 SCC 764 , wherein it was held that the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings criminal and departmental - are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. -
In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt’, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of 'preponderance of probability'…..”
The court further held that It is true that this Court, apart from the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony, has in a few cases not interfered with the reinstatement of an employee who was dismissed as a result of disciplinary proceedings, and was only reinstated in service because of his acquittal in criminal proceedings, but again the reasons which weighed with the Court in such cases were that in almost in all such cases, the acquittal was an honourable acquittal and not an acquittal on a technicality, or on acquittal given because of “benefit of doubt”
Therefore, in the present case the acquittal of the respondent is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to a “benefit of doubt”.
Merely because the employee was acquitted by the criminal court it does not mean, ipso-facto that he is entitled to be reinstated in service, since he was dismissed from service after facing a disciplinary proceeding.
Merely because the employee was acquitted by the criminal court it does not mean, ipso-facto that he is entitled to be reinstated in service - since he was dismissed from service after facing a disciplinary proceeding.pdf