Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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