Employee Action Form: Fill & Download for Free

The Rule 56 (J) of Fundamental Rules for Civil Services is in news because 12 officers of IRS (Income Tax) and 15 officers of IRS(Customs & Indirect Taxes) were compulsorily retired by Government of India under Rule 56(j) recently.Rule 56(j) is one of the oldest Rule in Government. However, this rule was used sparingly in exceptional situations only.This rule can be reinforced not only for Strengthening of administration but also to issue warning to the Employees those who are underperforming. Despite this genuine reason to reinforce this Rule, there is constant fear that it may be misused by higher authority to victimize the government employees those who are not willing to act upon their whims and fancies.According to 56 (j) of Fundamental Rule“The Appropriate Authority shall, if it is in the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of such notice:If he is in Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years.In any other case, after he has attained the age of 55 years.Government servant shall be entitled to a retiring pension provided that the appointing authority may also give a notice in writing to a Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire in the public interest or three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of such notice.Government of India’s viewThe officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace to public service and injurious to public interest.Thus while considering integrity of an employee, actions or decisions taken by the employee which do not appear to be above board, complaints received against him, or suspicious property transactions, for which there may not be sufficient evidence to initiate departmental proceedings, may be taken into account.Similarly, reports of conduct unbecoming of a Government servant may also form basis for compulsory retirement.Observation by Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court has observed in State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel. 2001 (3) SCC 314 as follows:(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 31 of the Constitution.(iii) “For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.”(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.(v) Even un-communicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.SourcesLatest DOPT order on FR 56 (j) is a fear factor for CG Employees

You are not respected:Your preferences are used but assumed, not polled, and occasionally explained to you with no room for correction.Your broader personality and identity are prescribed by others.You are poorly managed:Multiple managers/superiors with conflicting demands.Work comes in lumps, so the only way to work at a constant pace is to guess what will be demanded of you next “emergency.”An individual is in a position to abuse their power over you.Your product is poorly planned:Expectations change multiple times inside deadlines.Decisions are made based upon the desired results, not the available paths to get to them.Never leaving “emergency mode” / “death march” on your product.Nobody making decisions talks to customers or to people who talk to customers.The following things are undervalued and under influence promotions/rewards:Prevention of emergencies.Increasing the efficiency of other people.Security.Automation.Maintenance.Usability.Fixing technical debt.Tracking and investigating reported issues.The following things are over valued and over influence promotions/rewards:Being loud/aggressive about your opinions/demands.Reinventing things without reducing technical debt.Reinventing things without integrating the new solution into the old system.Shiny proof of concepts which don’t get productized.Seniority.Social dynamics outside the workplace.Your environment is not conducive to bringing your superiors good results.You have no voice to escalate issues, but you will still face the consequences for them.Your environment (number of meetings, floorplan) is structured so you can only talk about your work and never do it.You can’t get the tools/resources you need to do your job.Deals you made with the company are not respectedYour job function is changed without your consent, giving you responsibilities in anything from being management to a secretary.Your boss can endlessly demand weekends and overtime.Your boss can cancel your vacation months after it was approved.Your boss lets you take your vacation but does not decrease your expected output during the time you are on vacation or plan deadlines around available person-hours.Your wages do not keep up with inflation.Personal employee incentives and company incentives are not alignedOffice politics dominate belief rather than results.It is not clear what sort of behavior/results will get you promoted.It does not seem that anybody’s else’s actions form any meaningful feedback loop for firing/promotion.There are no meaningful consequences for being terrible to your coworkers.

Jonathan Brill’s answer is excellent, but I think there's a largely unexplored aspect to this question regarding United’s employee actions. It's a key question because no amount of PR training can handle a mess like this if the CEO doesn't think there is something to apologize about.We know from the Stanford Prison Experiment (1971 study) that ordinary people are capable of extraordinary cruelty purely by placing them in positions of power within a strongly authoritarian environment. When something bad happens like the United incident, there is a search for the “bad apples” responsible. But the Stanford experiment showed us it’s entirely possible to be just a function of a bad barrel.And so I wonder how much of this is United’s culture of rules, power and punishment vs. empowering and enabling good judgement by front line employees.I have personally encountered several situations where United employees act like they're inside the Stanford Prison Experiment, acting within the power structures that can reward or punish them regardless of the customer (prisoner) experience. Nothing like the man experienced on the flight in question, but I have had (for example) United employees try to remove me from my bought and paid for seat post boarding because they thought they had a better use for it.United CEO’s response just reinforced my take on this incident. This is a man who is responsible for the company's culture. His first reaction was to frame it within the power structures of United, rather than seeing it from the prisoner’s, I mean customer’s, perspective. The employees were merely following the rules and exercising the power they had been granted by Federal law to compel passengers who do not comply with crew member instructions. Much like the “guards” (students) in the Stanford Prison Experiment could compel the “prisoners” (other students) to do whatever they wanted.It is striking that organizations with strong customer centric reactions like Southwest don't achieve this with rules and top-down power structures. They deliberately devolve power to front line employees, and allow them to own their decisions to maximize customer satisfaction. They also select for the kind of people who share the cultural values of the company. They use culture as a form of social control, reducing the need for formal rules and power structures.So I am not sure if good PR practice can help in this situation. It presupposes a culture of putting the customer before internal power structures.