“He says everyone is against me. That he’s the only one on my side.”
Story 02 · shared by an HR leader · every name changed · comic film, 8 min 50 sResigned. Withdrawn. Resigned.
It was 2020, the lockdown, and everyone worked from home. In three days, the HR head, Nandini, got three notifications about one employee, Ruhi. She resigned. She withdrew it. She resigned again. Then she stopped answering calls and email.
Her brother called from another city: the family could not reach her either. When Ruhi finally picked up, she said she wanted to leave because of her manager. A complaint followed, and an internal committee looked into it. What it could prove, and what HR did next, is the rest of the film.
Three things that were said, and what they meant.
Five chapters, one point of view.
We follow Nandini the whole way. You only know what she knew, when she knew it.
- Three notificationsResigned, withdrawn, resigned. Then silence.
- The letterA call from her brother, and a letter she wrote home.
- The only one on your sideRuhi names her manager. A committee is set up.
- What can be provedChats, a receipt, and a finding: not substantiated.
- What HR can’t sayA promotion is proposed. HR says no, and can’t say why.
Three lessons from the case.
- A missing employee is a welfare question before it is an HR process.Act on silence early, and through every channel.
- “I’m the only one on your side” is a boundary problem, whatever the intent.Managers can support people without becoming their only support.
- “Not proven” is not the same as “no concerns.”A closed inquiry can still count when you judge someone’s readiness to lead.
Your decision is visible. Your reasons are confidential. How do you protect trust in HR when you can’t explain yourself?
Where do you land? Tap one to see how other readers answered.
The Exit Interview: A Ritual of Polite Lies
Why do we ask people why they’re leaving, in the week they leave?
Use this at work · PlaybookKeep Them Before They Go
Spot risk early, talk often, and act fast when something changes.
Every name and detail that could identify a person has been changed. The committee did not substantiate the allegations, and the film never shows them as fact. Spotted an error? Write to the editors.