MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Concealment of Antecedents in Job Application Justifies Termination": Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds SBI's Decision in Probationary Officer's Dismissal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent judgment, has affirmed the termination of a probationary officer from the State Bank of India (SBI) for concealing his criminal antecedents in his job application. The court emphasized the necessity for truthfulness and full disclosure in applications, especially for positions that demand high integrity and trust.

The petitioner, who joined SBI as a Probationary Officer, was terminated after it was discovered that he had concealed his involvement in various criminal cases at the time of his application and subsequent interviews. The petitioner argued that he had either been acquitted or the cases were of a trivial nature not warranting disclosure. The key issue was whether concealment of criminal antecedents, irrespective of their nature, justifies termination from service.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal, assessing the case, referred to the Supreme Court's directives in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India. The Court observed, "In case of deliberate suppression of fact, an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services." It was found that the petitioner was aware of his pending cases and deliberately chose not to disclose them. Justice Bansal noted, “The act of the petitioner comes in the teeth of afore-cited judgments of the Apex Court.”

 

 

The judgment was primarily based on the principles laid down in Avtar Singh and Satish Chandra Yadav cases, which stress the importance of full disclosure of criminal antecedents in job applications, especially in roles demanding high moral and ethical standards. The Court highlighted that even in cases of acquittal, the employer has the right to consider the candidate’s antecedents.

The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the termination of the petitioner by the SBI, citing the deliberate concealment of his criminal cases during the application process.

Date of Decision: 02.02.2024

Kuldeep Vs. State Bank of India and another

Similar News