Acquittal doesn’t erase lies: Delhi High Court upholds SBI’s decision to fire ex-Army guard

Honesty at entry stage decisive: Court

Dismissing the petitioner’s challenge, the court made it clear that the integrity of the recruitment process hinges on full and honest disclosure, not on the eventual outcome of criminal proceedings.

The Delhi High Court said, “The Bank (SBI) was entitled to consider what that failure revealed about the petitioner’s candour and trustworthiness in the recruitment process.”

The court emphasised that roles such as bank guards, often involving security responsibilities, require a high degree of trust and transparency.

It held that truthful disclosure at the stage of recruitment is non-negotiable, and that subsequent acquittal does not wipe out the consequences of suppression.

“The relevant consideration is whether, at the time of recruitment, the petitioner truthfully disclosed the pendency of the criminal case… Acquittal does not efface (erase) suppression,” the Delhi High Court said.

Removed over non-disclosure

• The case arose from the termination of the petitioner, who was appointed as an SBI guard on June 27, 2022, after serving in the Army.
• His services were terminated through a communication dated August 9, 2023, after the SBI discovered that he had failed to disclose a pending criminal case in his attestation form.
• The case in question was registered in 2014 under sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and was pending at the time of his recruitment. He was acquitted only on December 8, 2022, several months after joining the bank.
• Yadav opposed the August 9, 2023, termination order, arguing that he had already become a confirmed employee after completing probation and that his removal for allegedly concealing a pending criminal case despite his later acquittal was illegal and without due disciplinary inquiry.
• The SBI treated the non-disclosure as suppression of a material fact and a breach of trust, ultimately leading to his removal from service.

No automatic confirmation after probation

A central plank of the petitioner’s argument was that he had completed six months of probation and should be deemed a confirmed employee, thereby entitling him to protection against termination without a full disciplinary inquiry.

The Delhi High Court rejected this, holding that confirmation was conditional, not automatic. “Confirmation was not intended to follow merely by efflux of time… it remained contingent upon satisfactory antecedent verification,” the court said.

The bench pointed out that the appointment letter clearly made confirmation subject to satisfactory police verification, meaning the petitioner never attained confirmed status.

‘Mistake’ defence rejected

The petitioner claimed that the omission was accidental, arguing that he had mistakenly filled out the form and did not intentionally suppress information. The court found this explanation unconvincing.

“The pending criminal case was not disclosed where it was required to be disclosed…the Bank (SBI) learnt of the matter not from the petitioner, but through police verification,” said the Delhi High Court. It held that whether deliberate or not, the failure amounted to suppression of a material fact.

The court acknowledged that the petitioner had been acquitted and that the case arose out of a family dispute. However, it held that these factors do not negate the obligation of disclosure at the recruitment stage. “The subsequent acquittal…did not efface the earlier failure of disclosure,” the high court said.

The ruling reinforces a consistent judicial view that transparency at entry is critical, irrespective of eventual innocence.

Termination legally valid

The petitioner also argued that since the bank had initially used the term “disciplinary proceedings,” it was bound to conduct a full inquiry.

Rejecting this, the Delhi High Court held that the final action remained a valid termination of a probationer under the applicable rules. “The use of loose disciplinary language…does not transform the final action into a major penalty,” it added.

Petition dismissed

Finding no arbitrariness or legal infirmity in SBI’s decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. “This Court is unable to find legal infirmity in the impugned action. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed,” the bench said.