MANDEEP KAUR Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dtd. 10/4/2018 (Annexure P-8) and order/communication dtd. 17/10/2018 (Annexure P-10), whereby offer of appointment issued to the petitioner for the post of Probationary Officer has been cancelled; along with certain other prayers.

(2.) The facts, as pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner had applied for the post of Probationary Officer in the respondent-Bank. The petitioner participated in the process of selection and was ultimately selected as per her merit. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued the appointment letter by the respondent-Bank. Accordingly, the petitioner was deputed to the induction training at Gurugram. When the petitioner joined the training, she informed the respondent-Bank that during the period of the process of selection, a criminal case, i.e. FIR No.83 dtd. 20/2/2017, under Ss. 147, 149, 323, 452 and 506 of the Indian Panel Code at Police Station Thanesar Sadar, District Kurukshetra, was registered; involving the name of the petitioner as well, along with other family members. Then the respondent-Bank had informed the petitioner that the petitioner should get clearance in the said criminal case. Later on, the petitioner was asked to report for training at Lucknow. However, the petitioner could not join because earlier the respondent-Bank had told her to get clearance in the criminal case, but the criminal case was still pending at that time. However, the same has now been quashed by this Court, vide order dtd. 20/7/2022 passed in CRM-M-27571-2022 (Bali Ram Hari and others Vs. State of Haryana and others). In the meantime, the petitioner had filed CWP-28038-2017 which was disposed of by directing the respondents to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner. Vide the impugned order dtd. 17/10/2018 (Annexure P-10), the respondents have denied the appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the criminal case against the petitioner has not attained finality and also relying upon Clause 9 of the appointment letter issued to the petitioner; which stipulated that the appointment was subject to satisfactory report regarding her character and antecedents from the Police Authorities and non-pendency of any criminal case/prosecution against her. The said clause also provided that her conviction, though released on probation and the compounding of offence shall also be treated as report adverse to her. Therefore, in essence, the petitioner has been denied to joining on the post; on the ground of pendency of the criminal case without recognizing the fact that the case against the petitioner already stands quashed.

(3.) Arguing the case, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent-Bank is totally baseless. When the petitioner applied for the job, there was no criminal case registered or pending against her. It was during the period of the process that a false case had come into being involving the name of the petitioner as well, along with her entire family. Even that case stands quashed by this Court. Therefore, there was no basis left for the respondents to deny the appointment to the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2016(3) S.C.T. 672. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the appointment to the post of Probationary Officer along with all consequential benefits. The writ petition deserves to be allowed.