Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MADHURESH PRASAD, J.
Abhishek Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Punjab National Bank through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11554 of 2014
Decided On : 29-03-2019
Service Law – Termination – From post of Agriculture Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale I – Petitioner has been paid one month's emoluments in lieu to notice period – Petitioner has suppressed information of his past employment – Appointing Authority was required to consider claim of petitioner having regard to facts and circumstances raised by petitioner in instant case such as fact that petitioner's employment with Indian Bank, at the time of his joining for training at ZTC, Kolkata, per se, did not constitute a disqualification for appointment in question as per extant provisions contained in Appointment Letter – Petitioner's plea that he did not gain any advantage by suppressing fact of his earlier employment is also to be considered – Respondent authority was also required to consider whether in circumstances and age at which suppression was done, can be considered to be a mitigating factor which has not been done – Petitioner should make detailed representation before Appointing Authority and upon such representation being filed, Appointing Authority should consider the same and dispose it of by a reasoned and speaking order – Impugned order quashed. (Paras 17, 18, 20 to 23)
JUDGMENT :
MADHURESH PRASAD, J.
1. The writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 12.05.2014 issued by the Assistant General Manager, Punjab National Bank invoking Clause 11 of Appointment Letter dated 02.08.2013 whereby and where under the petitioner was communicated his selection for the post of Agriculture Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale I (for brevity AO in JMG Scale-I). Clause 11 of the Appointment Letter contains stipulation which is as follows:
2. The petitioner has been paid one month’s emoluments in lieu to the notice period in accordance with Clause 3 of the said Appointment Letter and his services have been terminated.
3. In order to appreciate this submission, this Court would make a note of the sequence of events leading to invocation of Clause 11 read with Clause 3 of the Appointment Letter.
4. Admitted fact is that when the petitioner was declared successful for appointment in the respondent-Punjab National Bank, he was already employed in the services of the Indian Bank as a Probationary Officer. The petitioner was relieved from services of the Indian Bank on 12.11.2013 that is about two months after he had submitted his joining by filling up and submitting his bio data at the ZTC, Kolkata on 16.09.2013. Prior to 12.11.2013, petitioner had applied for being relieved from the Indian Bank and his application was being processed as he was obliged to make some payments to the erstwhile employer before he could have been relieved from its services.
5. It is no nobody’s case that the petitioner could not have been in employment at the time of submitting his bio data/joining in services of the Bank on 16.09.2013. Petitioner, however, was required to disclose details of his present or past employment in the bio data/joining which was being submitted by him. The requirement in the bio data form is as follows:
| If employed, give the name and address of your present and past employers, including PNB. Also, give your avocation, business or otherwise including employment after completion of your education upto the date of your joining the bank | Position held, exact designation and nature of work | Nature of business |
| If you have worked with more than one employer, give your employment history as above in a separate sheet of paper may we refer to your present employer | ||
6. The petitioner, in all the columns provided in the bio data has mentioned NA. Even in the column whereby question has been asked whether the respondent may refer to his present employer, petitioner has mentioned NA. Petitioner has, therefore, not disclosed any detail regarding his past employment with the Indian Bank which was very much subsisting at the time of submission of his bio data at ZTC, Kolkata. It would be relevant to mention here that all this happened while the petitioner was pursuing the erstwhile employer (Indian Bank) for being relieved from their services. Being conscious of his employment with the Indian Bank, petitioner, in his bio data/joining submitted at ZTC, Kolkata has suppressed the fact of his erstwhile/present employer/employment at the time of his joining. He has not only suppressed this fact but has misrepresented the fact of his present employment at the time of joining in the Bank by consciously filling up the said columns by writing NA. Fact that the petitioner was in the services of the Indian Bank and was corresponding for relieving orders which is evident from Annexure 1, Annexure 4 a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
