SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Mere Registration of FIR not Disqualify from Job- P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


According to a recent ruling by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the simple filing of a criminal complaint against a candidate cannot be used as a justification to deny them the opportunity to apply for a position and be considered for one.

The statement was issued by the Justice Rajbir Sherawat Bench in response to a motion to vacate the withdrawal of petitioner Mandeep Kaur's appointment letter for the position of probationary officer.

Kaur told the court that she applied for a Probationary Officer position at a bank, was chosen, and received an employment letter before beginning her training in Gurgaon.

Kaur told the Bank during the training that she and her family members were the targets of criminal charges under IPC sections 147, 149, 453, 506, and 452 against them.

The Bank then requested that Kau obtain authorization in the matter. Later, Kaur was denied permission to attend training in Lucknow because she could not provide clearance. The FIR against Kaur was invalidated on July 20 of this year, it should be emphasised.

The Bank rejected her employment based on clause 9 of the appointment letter, which stated that her appointment was contingent upon receiving a favourable report regarding her background and character.

In front of the court, Kaur's attorney claimed that no case against Kaur had been filed at the time she applied for the position, and that the aforementioned FIR has since been dismissed.

The Bench stated at the outset that the FIR in question has since been quashed and the justification for the petitioner's denial of appointment has therefore been eliminated.

The court said that there is no rule requirement that an appointment can be denied solely because a criminal case was registered, and that the respondents' reliance on the proviso in the appointment letter is invalid and immaterial.

As a result, the court nullified the contested order and ordered that the petitioner get an appointment letter within two months.

Mandeep Kaur vs Canara Bank & Anr

Latest Legal News