The Delhi High Court has held that the non-disclosure of a pending criminal case in a recruitment attestation form serves as a valid ground for the termination of a probationer. Justice Sanjeev Narula, while dismissing a writ petition filed by a Bank Guard against the State Bank of India (SBI), clarified that the principle of “deemed confirmation” cannot be invoked to shield an employee who has suppressed material facts, especially when the appointment letter makes confirmation contingent upon satisfactory antecedent verification.
Legal Issue
The case centered on whether a probationer could claim automatic confirmation of service after the expiry of six months, despite having furnished false information regarding his criminal record at the time of recruitment. The court deliberated on the interplay between the “deemed confirmation” clause of the Sastri Award and the specific conditional terms of an appointment letter.
Background of the Case
The Petitioner, Rajkiran Yadav, an ex-Army personnel, was appointed as a Bank Guard by SBI on June 27, 2022. The appointment letter placed him on probation for six months and explicitly stated that confirmation was subject to “receipt of satisfactory report about your character and antecedents from the police authorities.”
During the recruitment process, the Petitioner filled out a bio-data-cum-attestation form where he answered “No” to the query regarding pending criminal cases. However, a police verification report received in December 2022 disclosed that FIR No. 129/2014 under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC was pending against him at the time of joining. Following a series of show-cause notices, the Bank terminated his services on August 9, 2023, under paragraph 522(1) of the Sastri Award.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Contentions: Counsel for the Petitioner argued that by the time the termination notice was issued, the Petitioner had already completed more than six months of service and should be treated as a confirmed employee under Clause 495 of the Sastri Award. He contended that since he was a confirmed employee, the Bank could not terminate his services via a notice of discharge but was required to conduct a full-fledged departmental inquiry for alleged misconduct.
Respondent’s Contentions: SBI maintained that the Petitioner remained a probationer because his confirmation was expressly dependent on a satisfactory police report. The Bank argued that the suppression of a pending criminal case was a “serious violation of recruitment standards,” rendering his continuation in service untenable. The Respondent relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India to assert that the requirement of truthful disclosure is essential for assessing suitability.
Court’s Analysis
The Court rejected the Petitioner’s claim of automatic confirmation, observing that the appointment letter was the primary instrument governing his entry into service. It noted that Clauses (c) and (j) of the letter made confirmation conditional upon the Bank’s satisfaction with antecedent reports. Justice Narula stated:
“These are not incidental stipulations. They go to the heart of the conditions on which the Petitioner was taken into service. They show, in plain terms, that confirmation was not intended to follow merely by efflux of time. It remained contingent upon satisfactory antecedent verification and a further decision of the Bank.”
Addressing the suppression of the criminal case, the Court highlighted that the subsequent acquittal of the Petitioner (recorded in December 2022) did not mitigate the initial failure to disclose the truth. The Court emphasized that truthful disclosure is a vital component of the recruitment process:
“Truthful disclosure regarding a pending criminal case is part of antecedent verification in bank employment as well, and an employer is entitled to attach weight to non-disclosure when considering whether a probationary engagement should be allowed to mature into confirmation or be brought to an end.”
The Court further held that since the Petitioner had not attained confirmed status, the Bank was legally permitted to act within the “probationary field” and dispense with his services without a major domestic inquiry.
Decision
The Court found no legal infirmity in the Bank’s decision and dismissed the writ petition. It concluded that the Bank was justified in its determination that the Petitioner’s failure to provide truthful information raised significant concerns about his credibility and reliability.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rajkiran Yadav v. State Bank of India Through its Chief General Manager and Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 11860/2023, CM APPL. 46295/2023
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Date: April 20, 2026
