2026:CGHC:7446 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR HIFZURRAHMAN WPS No. 2858 of 2022 ANSARI

1 - Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Bhuwan Lal Sahu Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Village Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN Achhola, P.S. Tumgaon, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)

ANSARI ... Petitioner Date: 2026.03.18

17:59:16 +0530 versus

1 - State Bank Of India Madama Cama Road, Naviman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400021 Through Its Chairman 2 - Zonal Manager State Bank Of India Regional Office, Zonal Office Premises Byron Bazar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Manager (H.R.) State Bank Of India Administrative Office, Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

4 - Regional Manager State Bank Of India Rbo Iii Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Branch Manager State Bank Of India, Kharsiya Dabra Road, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya with Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order On Board

10.02.2026

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s);

“(i) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned termination order dated 09.02.2022 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice.

(ii) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on his service within the stipulated period as given by per the facts and the Hon'ble Court as circumantaces of the case, in the interest of justice.

iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

2. The facts in this case in a nutshell is that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman who retired from the Army on 30.11.2019. An advertisement was issued by the respondent bank on 12.03.2020 inviting applications from ex-servicemen for the post of Bank Guard. The petitioner was found successful and issued a selection order on 11.06.2021. While submitting the application for appointment, the petitioner was required to submit a declaration regarding his previous antecedents, specifically whether he had ever been arrested, tried, or convicted by a criminal court. The petitioner, in his application, failed to provide this information. The petitioner was convicted and fined an amount of Rs. 900/- for an offence under Section 279 of the IPC, 1860 and Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) in criminal case no. 119/2013, as per the impugned termination order dated 09.02.2022 (Annexure P/1). The alleged conviction and fine imposed upon the petitioner related to trivial offences i.e. rash and negligent driving and driving an uninsured vehicle. These cannot be classified as offences of moral turpitude. Furthermore, the petitioner being an ex-serviceman has no other criminal cases registered against him nor has he been convicted in any other criminal matters. The petitioner has been deprived of his regular service. The impugned order while reflecting that certain material facts were suppressed fails to disclose how this suppression has affected the petitioner’s service.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, an ex-

serviceman who retired from the Army on 30.11.2019, applied successfully under the respondent bank's advertisement dated 12.03.2020 for the post of Bank Guard and got selected. While submitting the application, he failed to disclose his prior conviction and fine of Rs. 900/- . He further submtis that these were trivial offences related to the rash/negligent driving of the MV Act.

He further submits that the act alleged against the petitioner does not involve the moral turpitudee. He placed relaince a judgment of this Court in case of Swami Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh (WP No. 6555/10, dt. 11.02.2013) and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471

4. On the other hand, learned c