RAJKIRAN YADAV Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition challenges the communication dated 9 th August, 2023 whereby the Respondent Bank brought the Petitioner's engagement to an end by serving one month's notice under paragraph 522(1) of the Sastri Award. The action proceeds on the basis that, at the time of recruitment, the Petitioner had suppressed a pending criminal case and furnished false information in the candidate bio-data-cum-attestation form. The Petitioner asserts that he had, in fact, attained confirmed status upon expiry of six months from the date of joining and could not be treated as a probationer.

(2.) The Petitioner is an ex-Army personnel who served for several years, received appreciation and a character certificate, and thereafter enrolled with the District Sainik Board for re-employment. This background is relied upon to indicate that he was not a person of doubtful antecedents. While that circumstance may be noted, it does not, by itself, resolve the issues arising in the present case. The controversy turns on the terms of appointment, the contents of the attestation form filled by the Petitioner, the nature of the omission therein, and the service law consequences that follow.

(3.) The Petitioner was shortlisted for the post of Bank Guard and was issued an appointment letter dtd. 27/6/2022, which assumes central importance in the present case. The letter placed him on probation for six months from the date of joining, with provision for extension if his work was found unsatisfactory. It further stipulated that confirmation would be subject to satisfactory reports regarding his character and antecedents from the police authorities and named references, and that, upon such satisfaction, the appointment "may then be confirmed by the Bank", failing which it could be terminated without assigning reasons. The letter also provided that if any information, declaration, certificate or testimonial was found to be incorrect or false, or if any material fact had been concealed or suppressed, the appointment would be deemed invalid ab initio and the Petitioner would render himself liable to appropriate action. It additionally recorded that the Petitioner would be governed by the applicable Awards and Bipartite Settlements.