Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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