Case Analysis: Rajan the Driver1

By
Team Trojans (Section-D)

Participants:
Monanshu Shah-p39207

Rajni Vidhani- p39217

Rupali Shrivastava- p39220

Rishabh Keshri- p39218

Susmit Biswas- p39231

Vini Satwani- p39235

Executive Summary:
The case revolves around Mr Rajan (Driver of the plant), Mr Somaraju (Plant Security Officer) and Mr
Suresh Mohan (Personnel Manager). Mr Somaraju filed a complaint against Mr Rajan stating that he
didn’t stop company’s vehicle at Sabjimandi where he was waiting for the vehicle, also he accused
Mr Rajan of carrying unauthorized passengers in the plant’s vehicle, which he was not supposed to
do. On top of it when he reached the plant’s main gate, he was approached and addressed
aggressively by the driver. Suresh Mohan issued a show cause notice to Mr Rajan to hear views from
both the side. Mr Rajan accused Mr Somaraju of consuming alcohol during office hours. Mr Suresh
Mohan in consultation with General Manager of the plant decided to investigate the case more
closely and as an interim arrangement they removed the driver from the post and transferred him to
the production department. The action didn’t go well with Mr Rajan (Driver of the plant), Mr
Somaraju (Plant Security Officer) and the labour union. How should Suresh Mohan go about finding a
solution to this problem?

Situation Analysis:
Sagarmatha Dairy Union is situated 20kms North of Nathadwara on Nathadwara-Valta road. There
are 200 employees who work three shifts (7 am- 3 pm, 3 pm- 11 pm and 11pm-7am) a day. There
are 20 staff quarters near the plant while the rest of the employees stays at Nathadwara. The
Nathadwara-Valta road is one of the most deserted roads and there is only a few public transport
vehicle. Hence, the plant provides a daily commute from Nathadwara to plant and back. To provide
the same service there are two minibuses and 4 drivers.

On 24th January 1993, Mr Somaraju filed a complaint against Mr Rajan stating that on 23rd January
he was waiting for plant vehicle to come to the plant between 3:30- 4:00 pm near Sabjimandi. At
around 4 pm the driver of the bus, Mr Rajan didn’t stop the bus despite his repeated signals.
Moreover, he accused Mr Rajan of carrying unauthorized passengers on the bus. On top of it as soon
as he arrived at the plant’s main gate he was accosted by the driver and abused by him. General
Manager issued a show cause notice to Mr Rajan based on this complaint. Mr Rajan replied that
while going back to the plant he was stopped by a group of children (some of whom were wards of
plant employees). On humanitarian grounds, he allowed them to board the bus. He further stated
that he had received a signal from Mr Somaraju but he didn’t stop the bus because he was drunk
and it was not proper to have a drunk man on the bus with the school children. Based on these
allegations Mr Somaraju insisted upon us sobriety. He further stated all the allegations were a ploy
used by Mr Rajan to hide his shortcomings and management shouldn’t pay heed to them and he had
also noticed that there were few adults present in the bus along with the school children.

Mr Rajan is 33 years old and has been working in the plant for 12 years. He initially started as a
casual labour and some seven years back he was appointed as a driver on probation basis and he has
still not received any confirmation letter. But he has developed a close contact with the recognised
employee’s union except for one incident when he was questioned but the allegation was trivial so it
was ignored. Hence, his work record is reasonably good. Whereas, Mr Somaraju is 42 years old
security officer who had joined Sagarmatha Dairy 3 years ago. A former arm force servant, he has a
good track record and is considered as an upright person. Except for a few instances, when he lost
his cool owing to the theft instances in the plant, where he had beaten a few casual labourers
mercilessly for which he had got into a trouble with the labour union. His 20 years’ service record in
the army has been immaculate, but it has also led to a habit of drinking but only after office hours. It
has been noticed that nobody has ever noticed him drunk in the daytime.
In order to come to a decision, the General Manager decided to transfer Rajan to the production
department of the plant until the investigation is going on. This move agitated the employee’s union
to voice their discomfort and also Mr Somaraju felt that the action didn’t give him due justice.
General Manager entrusted Mr Suresh Mohan to find an appropriate solution to the problem.

Objectives:

Mr Suresh Mohan has to figure out that who has been telling the truth between these two
individuals and then decide on the appropriate course of action. It should be noted that the decision
has to be taken quickly because the agitation among the union might aggravate leading to
something much worse.

Decision Problem Statement:

Mr Suresh Mohan has been stuck because Mr Somaraju and Mr Rajan are describing the situation in
2 different ways and now he has to decide who is telling the truth. The problem that he is facing is
he doesn’t have proper witnesses to corroborate any of the stories. Owing to time restraint he also
cannot make an extensive investigation on his own.

Criteria for decision making:

The decision should not be biased and due investigation should be carried out.

Generating Alternatives:
1. Mr Suresh Mohan can give the permanent employment status to Mr Rajan, this will appease
employee union and the situation will remain under control.

2. An investigation should be carried out as soon as possible and on the basis of the same decision
should be taken and by that time Rajan should be convinced to stay in the production department.

Evaluation of Alternatives:
1) We don’t know if Mr Rajan is speaking the truth or not so providing permanent employment
status might backfire and then reversing the decision might not be that easy and if permanent
employment status is given to Mr Rajan then it might aggravate the agitation level of Mr Somaraju.

2) An investigation should be carried out as soon as possible and this will give us a clear picture of
the situation and ultimately we will be able to figure out whose fault it was. Also convincing Rajan to
stay in the production department for a short period of time will not be that difficult.

Choice of an Alternative:
Considering the decision making criteria alternative 2 seems plausible because in this case role of
biasedness could be reduced. Thereby helping Suresh Mohan to- take the decision that is in the best
interest of an organisation.

Implementation:
He should consult all the witnesses that are related to the case. He should talk to the children who
boarded the bus and also he should talk to the people who were present at the main gate when
both of them confronted each other. After taking witnesses’ statements, he should take the due
course of action against the culprit.