Bank's Guard Post Involves Handling Arms, Strict Disclosure Of Appointee's Antecedents Essential: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of a bank guard for suppressing information about a pending criminal case at the time of recruitment, observing that the nature of the post requires strict and truthful disclosure of antecedents.Justice Sanjeev Narula observed,“The post in question is that of a guard, which involves handling of arms, and therefore strict and truthful disclosure...
The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of a bank guard for suppressing information about a pending criminal case at the time of recruitment, observing that the nature of the post requires strict and truthful disclosure of antecedents.
Justice Sanjeev Narula observed,
“The post in question is that of a guard, which involves handling of arms, and therefore strict and truthful disclosure of antecedents is essential for assessing suitability.”
The bench thus dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner, who had been engaged as a guard with the State Bank of India.
As per the record, the petitioner had answered “No” in the attestation form regarding pendency of criminal cases, despite an FIR being pending against him at the time of joining. The fact came to light only upon police verification. Although the petitioner was later acquitted, the Court held that subsequent acquittal does not erase the earlier failure to disclose material information.
Rejecting the contention that the non-disclosure was inadvertent, the Court observed that the obligation to furnish truthful information in the attestation form is fundamental to the recruitment process.
The employer is entitled to take a decision on suitability and continuity in service, it said.
The Court further noted that the Petitioner was still in probationary period and had not attained confirmed employment merely by efflux of time, as confirmation was expressly made subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Appearance: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Mr. Anuj Umar Sharma and Mr. Aditya Dikshit, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Rajiv Kapur, SC for SBI with Mr. Akshit Kapur, AOR with Ms. Riya Sood, Advocates for Respondents
Case title: Rajkiran Yadav v. State Bank Of India Through Its Chief General Manager And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11860/2023