UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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

Latest Legal News