Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
Kuldeep – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India and another - Respondents
CWP-2281-2024
Decided on : 02-02-2024
Concealment - Employment Termination - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 342, 323, 506/34, 279, 337, 338, 138, 174A - The court discussed the petitioner's concealment of criminal antecedents and the employer's right to consider antecedents before appointment. The court referred to the legal positions summarized in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India and others, emphasizing the employer's discretion to cancel candidature or terminate services in case of deliberate suppression of fact.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Probationary Officer, joined the respondent-State Bank of India, and was later terminated for concealing criminal antecedents. The petitioner argued that the criminal cases were compromised or set aside, and the cases were quasi-criminal in nature. The court found that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact of pending criminal cases and did not disclose his antecedents as required by the advertisement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact of pending criminal cases and did not disclose his antecedents as required by the advertisement. The court referred to legal positions from Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India and others, emphasizing the employer's discretion to cancel candidature or terminate services in case of deliberate suppression of fact.
Issues: Concealment of criminal antecedents, employer's right to consider antecedents before appointment, deliberate suppression of fact, termination of services.
Ratio Decidendi: The employer has the right to consider antecedents before appointment, and deliberate suppression of fact regarding criminal antecedents may lead to cancellation of candidature or termination of services.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding it bereft of merit, and upheld the termination of the petitioner's services.
JUDGMENT :
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of notice dated 06.10.2022 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) whereby he has been terminated from service.
2. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement dated 05.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) applied for the post of Probationary Officer. He cleared written test as well as interview and medical. The petitioner on 18.04.2022 joined respondent-State Bank of India as Probationary Officer. The respondent-bank after joining of petitioner vide impugned notice dated 06.10.2022 (Annexure P-2) called upon him to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him and why his services should not be terminated for concealment of material facts. The said notice was issued on the ground that petitioner has not disclosed his criminal antecedents in the application form as well as at the time of interview. The notice dated 06.10.2022 is reproduced as below:-
2. In this connection, we advise that your appointment/confirmation in services of the Bank is subject to satisfactory report from District/Police Authorities regarding your character and antecedents as has been mentioned in “Offer of Appointment” dated 11.04.2022 issued to you. During the process of verification of your character & antecedents, it has come to our notice that there were/are some criminal cases registered against you and were/are pending in Courts of law. However, you had not disclosed anything about these cases to the Bank, either at the time of applying for the post or at the time interviews, or at the time of joining the Bank.
3. In this connection, your kind attention is invited to terms & conditions stipulated in the referred advertisement which reads as under:
“1. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA-1(C)- Other.
(ii) Candidates against whom there is/are adverse report regarding character & antecedents, moral turpitude are not eligible to apply for the post.”
“16. GENERAL INFORMATION:
(XX) At the time of interview, the candidate will be required to provide details regarding criminal case(s) pending against him/her, if any. The Bank may also conduct independent verification, inter alia, including verification of police records etc. The Bank reserves to deny the appointment depending upon such disclosures and/or independent verification”
“18- Disclaimer:
In case it is detected at any stage of recruitment that a candidate does not fulfill the eligibility norms and/or that he/she has furnished any incorrect/false information or has suppressed any material fact(s), his/her/their candidature will stand cancelled. If any of these shortcomings is/are detected even after appointment, his/her services are liable to be terminated.”
4. Accordingly, it is apparent that there is/are adverse report against you regarding character and antecedents, and material information/facts have been concealed by you from the Bank. In view of the abovesaid, please arrange to explain why action should not be initiated against you and your services should not terminated for concealment of the material facts.”
3. The petitioner filed reply to aforesaid show cause notice pleading that he has not concealed any material information. The criminal cases have already been compromised or set aside. The respondent-bank did not agree with the submission of the petitioner and vide impugned order dated 29.12.2023 has terminated him holding that he has secured appointment by concealing material information/facts regarding the criminal cases. The petitioner was not even eligible to apply for the post and it is apparent from the report of District Police that his antecedents are not satisfactory. The relevant extracts of impugned order
Candidates must truthfully disclose their criminal antecedents, and the employer has the right to consider such antecedents in employment decisions.
The concealment of a pending criminal case during the employment application process can justify termination of services, as integrity and character are critical for positions within the judicial sys....
Suppressing minor criminal information does not automatically disqualify candidates for government service; context and fairness must guide the decision-making process.
Suppression of material facts regarding pending criminal cases has a clear bearing on the character, conduct, and antecedents of the employee, and can lead to termination of services.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that failure to disclose criminal antecedents may not justify termination of employment, especially if the charges are trivial and do not affect th....
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
