Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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