Rajan The Driver

An incident occured in the cattle feed plant of Sagarmatha Dairy Union which involved the
driver of the plant, Mr. Rajan, and the security officer, Mr. Somaraju. Rajan had put around 12
years of service in the plant and had been occupying the position of a probationary driver. He
was popular and well connected to the recognised employees’ Union. Despite his track record
being good, except for a minor infraction which was waived off, he was still on probation. Mr.
Somaraju was a retired army officer and joined as a security officer three years ago. He has a
good record in organisation and is considered as an upright person, except that in a few
instances of theft in a plant, he had beaten one or two casual labourers mercilessly. It is
reported that he is in the habit of drinking, but only after the office hours.

Problem Statement:
On the day of the incident, Rajan’s duty was to take the employees of the day’s first shift to
Nathdwara and drop them near their respective residences. At around 4:00 p.m. Mr. Somaraju
saw the plant’s minibus approaching Sabjimandi, which lay between Nathdwara and the plant,
and signalled the driver of the minibus, Mr. Rajan, to stop the vehicle. Instead of stopping and
picking him up, Rajan sped by. A shocked Somaraju arrived at the plant gate only to be
accosted by the driver at the gate and be badly abused by him. The following day, he launched
a formal complaint against Rajan for ignoring a signal from an officer of the organisation to stop
the vehicle and carrying unauthorised passengers in the plant’s vehicle. Rajan was summoned
and defended himself by saying that he was stopped by a group of children some of whom
happened to be wards of some plant employees. He accepted the request of the children to
bring them near the plant where they lived on humanitarian grounds. Though Rajan had
received a signal from Somaraju, he observed that Somaraju was drunk and not able to stand
properly on his feet, and did not stop the bus because he did not like to have a drunken man
with the school children. Somaraju stated that allegations are baseless and he has never taken a
drink during daytime. Somaraju asked management for strong action against Rajan as he had
abused an officer of the organisation. In extraordinary circumstances on humanitarian grounds,
the plant driver had carried ordinary passengers on their way back. No one ever objected to
such practices. A few days later, after long deliberations, the Personnel Manager Mr. Suresh
Mohan and the General Manager decided to investigate the matter more closely and as an
interim arrangement transferred Rajan to the production department of the plant. This agitated
the employees' union and they issued an ultimatum to the management to solve the case
quickly and reinstate Rajan in his previous position, warning them of severe consequences. The
security officer on the other hand maintained that he was hurt by the way the management has
treated this affair.
Course of Action:
● The ideal course would be to temporarily put both of them on leave for a few days. The
investigation can be carried out without the interference of the both parties and
without either party influencing the process.
● The Personnel Manager would need to gather eyewitness accounts from guards/other
individuals about what occurred near the gate. This can play a vital role in determining
whether Somaraju’s account of the narrative is true or not. The eyewitnesses near the
gate can also confirm whether Somaraju appeared drunk or not.
● Mr. Mohan should find out who the children were and then interview them regarding
who all were in the bus. Strong conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that can be
gathered from this enquiry.
● Rajan couldn’t have known if Somaraju was drunk or not based on seeing him from a
moving bus. It could be that Somaraju was momentarily disbalanced due to the act of
signalling to the bus. Rajan seems to appear biased against Somaraju. This could've
happened because he is aware of Somaraju’s drinking habits. Soamaraju’s past instances
of beating up employees can also play a role in this. This observation could shed some
light on the matter and that facts are yet to reveal themselves.
● Management needs to talk to other close colleagues of Somaraju and Rajan to find out
how both of them described what happened between him and Rajan. If there are
discrepancies in their accounts, it can be inferred if something was wrong.
● The decision must be made objectively and not in fear of gheraos and strikes, as the
workers are not in their legal right to strike for the change in position of a worker who
was on probation.