* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 13^th April, 2026.

Pronounced on: 20^th April, 2026.

Uploaded on: 20^th April, 2026.

+ W.P.(C) 11860/2023, CM APPL. 46295/2023 RAJKIRAN YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Mr. Anuj Umar Sharma and Mr. Aditya Dikshit, Advocates.

versus STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, SC for SBI with Mr.

Akshit Kapur, AOR with Ms. Riya Sood, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. The present writ petition challenges the communication dated 9^th August, 2023 whereby the Respondent Bank brought the Petitioner’s engagement to an end by serving one month’s notice under paragraph 522(1) of the Sastri Award. The action proceeds on the basis that, at the time of recruitment, the Petitioner had suppressed a pending criminal case and furnished false information in the candidate bio-data-cum-attestation form. The Petitioner asserts that he had, in fact, attained confirmed status upon expiry of six months from the date of joining and could not be treated as a probationer.

2. The Petitioner is an ex-Army personnel who served for several years, received appreciation and a character certificate, and thereafter enrolled with the District Sainik Board for re-employment. This background is relied upon to indicate that he was not a person of doubtful antecedents. While that circumstance may be noted, it does not, by itself, resolve the issues arising in the present case. The controversy turns on the terms of appointment, the contents of the attestation form filled by the Petitioner, the nature of the omission therein, and the service law consequences that follow.

3. The Petitioner was shortlisted for the post of Bank Guard and was issued an appointment letter dated 27^th June, 2022, which assumes central importance in the present case. The letter placed him on probation for six months from the date of joining, with provision for extension if his work was found unsatisfactory. It further stipulated that confirmation would be subject to satisfactory reports regarding his character and antecedents from the police authorities and named references, and that, upon such satisfaction, the appointment “may then be confirmed by the Bank”, failing which it could be terminated without assigning reasons. The letter also provided that if any information, declaration, certificate or testimonial was found to be incorrect or false, or if any material fact had been concealed or suppressed, the appointment would be deemed invalid ab initio and the Petitioner would render himself liable to appropriate action. It additionally recorded that the Petitioner would be governed by the applicable Awards and Bipartite Settlements.

4. The Petitioner accepted that appointment. As part of the recruitment process, he filled in the bio-data-cum-attestation form, which required disclosure of, inter alia, his antecedents and any involvement in criminal proceedings. The relevant portion of the Candidate’s Bio-data-cum-

Attestation Form filled by the Petitioner is extracted below:

“STATE BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL RECRUITMENT & PROMOTION DEPARTMENT CANDIDATE’S BIO-DATA-CUM-ATTESTATION FORM (Please fill in the form in your own handwriting after reading carefully)

5. The Bank’s case arises from the Character Verification Certificate dated 20^th December, 2022, which was received upon police verification. On that basis, it issued the first communication dated 15^th February, 2023 to the Petitioner. The communication, titled “disciplinary proceedings” and bearing the sub-heading “Furnishing false information in candidate bio-data- cum-attestation form at the time of recruitment in Bank”, alleges that the Petitioner had furnished false information in column 16 by answering “No” to the query regarding pending cases, whereas the verification report disclosed the pendency of FIR No. 129/2014 under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC, Police Station Jaffarp