Subsequent Acquittal Does Not Efface Suppression Of Pending Criminal Case: Delhi High Court Upholds Termination Of Bank Employee

The Court noted that the termination was not a punishment for the alleged criminal offense itself, but a consequence of the candidate’s lack of candour and suitability. By failing to disclose the FIR, the employee deprived the employer of the opportunity to assess his character, thereby justifying the Bank’s decision to terminate his services within the probationary field.

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, “…The Bank was not confronted with a concluded criminal case that had been candidly disclosed at the threshold and then weighed against the Petitioner’s overall suitability. It was confronted with a criminal case which was pending at the time of recruitment and which, according to the Bank, had not been properly disclosed in the attestation form, but came to its notice only through police verification. The subsequent acquittal was undoubtedly a relevant circumstance. It did not, however, efface the earlier failure of disclosure. The Bank was, therefore, entitled to consider what that failure revealed about the Petitioner’s candour and trustworthiness in the recruitment process”.

Advocate Piyush Sharma appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Rajiv Kapur appeared for the respondent.

The Petitioner, an ex-Army personnel, joined the State Bank of India as a Bank Guard on June 27, 2022, subject to a six-month probation period. In his bio-data-cum-attestation form, he answered "No" to queries regarding pending criminal cases.

However, a police verification report received in December 2022 revealed that an FIR involving charges of criminal intimidation and voluntarily causing hurt was pending against him at the time of his appointment. Although the Petitioner was subsequently acquitted by a Trial Court on December 8, 2022, the Bank initiated an inquiry into the non-disclosure of the case.

The Bank issued show-cause notices in February and May 2023, asking the Petitioner to explain the suppression. The Petitioner admitted the omission but termed it a mistake due to a lack of understanding. Consequently, on August 9, 2023, the Bank terminated his services by providing one month’s notice under paragraph 522(1) of the Sastri Award.

The Petitioner challenged the order via a writ petition, arguing that since the six-month probation period had lapsed, he was a confirmed employee and could not be terminated without a full departmental inquiry.

The Court rejected the "deemed confirmation" argument, noting that the appointment letter explicitly made confirmation subject to satisfactory character verification. Since the Petitioner had suppressed the FIR, the condition for satisfactory verification was not met, and he could not transition to confirmed status through his own dishonesty.

The Bench further observed that the Bank had the right to assess suitability based on the disclosure of antecedents. The Court held that the termination was termination simpliciter based on the terms of the probation and not a stigmatic dismissal, as the Bank’s action was rooted in the breach of trust rather than the criminal charges themselves.

“…The Bank was not confronted with a concluded criminal case that had been candidly disclosed at the threshold and then weighed against the Petitioner’s overall suitability. It was confronted with a criminal case which was pending at the time of recruitment and which, according to the Bank, had not been properly disclosed in the attestation form, but came to its notice only through police verification. The subsequent acquittal was undoubtedly a relevant circumstance. It did not, however, efface the earlier failure of disclosure. The Bank was, therefore, entitled to consider what that failure revealed about the Petitioner’s candour and trustworthiness in the recruitment process”, the Bench noted.

The Court on finding no legal infirmity in the Bank’s procedure or the final order dismissed the writ petition. It held that the Bank acted within its rights to discharge a probationer whose conduct failed the test of integrity required for the post. All pending applications were also disposed of.

Cause Title: Rajkiran Yadav v. State Bank of India through its Chief General Manager and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3284)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Piyush Sharma, Anuj Umar Sharma, and Aditya Dikshit, Advocates.

Respondents: Rajiv Kapur, Akshit Kapur and Riya Sood, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment