Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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

Latest Legal News