Mr Kuruva Somesh Vs State Bank of India

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE TERMINATION LETTER NO. HR/RP/AS/1923 DTD 5.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND REINSTATE THE PETITIONER IN TO THE SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENT BANK ALONG WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:41562 WP No. 986 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of termination dated 05.12.2023 vide Annexure-A passed by the respondent.

¶33

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶34

2.1. The petitioner is physically disabled and suffers from a physical locomotive disability of his left lower limb. The percentage of the disability is classified as 86%. The petitioner filed an application to the post of Junior Associate (Customer Support) at SBI by a recruitment notification dated 07.09.2022. Subsequent to the notification, the petitioner participated in the prelims, and mains examinations, and he was shortlisted in the Clerical cadre as a Junior Associate (Customer Support and Sales)

¶35

and an offer of appointment was issued to him on 22.03.2023. Subsequent to the offer of the appointment, the appointment order was issued on 12.04.2023,

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:41562 WP No. 986 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

pursuant to the issuance of appointment order, the petitioner started to work at SBI. He had worked for more than 9 months and thereafter, the respondent issued a show-cause notice on 04.10.2023, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner has concealed regarding a minor penalty that was imposed on him by the earlier employer. The petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice on 16.10.2023. The petitioner also submitted a representation on 18.12.2023. The respondent, without considering the reply and representation submitted by the petitioner and without holding an enquiry, passed an order of termination, contending that the petitioner has concealed the material fact. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of termination, filed this writ petition.

¶40

The respondent filed a statement of objections admitting about the issuance of notification, and also appointing the petitioner. It is contented that, the petitioner did not disclose about his minor penalty imposed by the earlier employer. It is contented that, the petitioner

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41562 WP No. 986 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

was censured for negligence in duties and non-adherence to the bank's laid down guidelines in issuing loose-leaf cheques in the customer's account, which resulted in fraudulent transfer/withdrawal of funds. The said fact was not disclosed, and suppressed by the petitioner in his BioData-cum-Attestation form submitted to the bank. The respondents have issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, and the petitioner submitted a reply. The respondent-Bank was not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner. The respondent has passed an order terminating the petitioner from service on the ground that the petitioner has concealed the material fact. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶44

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the respondentBank.

¶45

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

¶46

the respondent has issued an appointment order, and the

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41562 WP No. 986 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

petitioner worked for more than 9 months in the respondent-Bank. All of a sudden, the petitioner received a show-cause notice from the respondent-Bank alleging that he has suppressed the material fact that the petitioner has not disclosed regarding the order of punishment passed by the earlier employer. He submits that, the order passed by the earlier employer is only a censure, and not an order of punishment. He also submits that, the order of termination is not a simpliciter. It is a stigmatic. He submits that, if it is a stigmatic order, the respondent should hold an enquiry. In order to buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pinky Meena Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and Another¹ , he also places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Nitin Sadashiv Khapne Vs. Union of India through Secretary² . He submits that,

¶50

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1214

¶51

2 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2969

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:41562 WP No. 986 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

the order of termination violates principle of natural justice and places a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of

¶56

India³ . Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶57

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the respondent while issuing a notification, made it very clear that the candidate should disclose all the information sought in the advertisement, and in the Application-cum-Bio-Data form. He submits that, the petitioner has suppressed that the earlier employer has passed an order of punishment/censure against the petitioner. The petitioner is guilty of suppression of the material fact. The respondent has issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the petitioner has suppressed the material fact. Although the petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice, the respondent was

¶58

3 AIR 1978 SC 597

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41562 WP No. 986 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner. He submits that, when the respondent has passed an order of termination, the petitioner was under probation. When he was under probation, there is no need to hold any enquiry and pass an order of termination. He has placed a reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others⁴ and Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India and Others⁵ ;and judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Kuldeep Vs. State Bank of India and Another⁶ . Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶62

Perused the records and considered the

¶63

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶64

There is no dispute that the respondent has issued an advertisement calling applications for the post of

¶65

4 (2016) 8 SCC 471

¶66

5 (2023) 7 SCC 536

¶67

6 CWP No.2281/2024, decided on 02.02.2024

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:41562 WP No. 986 of 2024

¶69

9 -

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Junior Associate (CS and S). Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent. The respondent called the petitioner for an interview and the petitioner was selected and the respondent has issued an order of appointment dated 12.04.2023. Pursuant to the appointment order, the petitioner has discharged his duty as a Junior Associate (CS and S) for a period of 9 months. Thereafter, the respondent issued a show-cause notice on 04.10.2023 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the petitioner did not disclose that the earlier employer has passed an order of censure. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice vide reply dated 16.10.2023. The respondent, without holding an enquiry, has passed an order of termination on 05.12.2023 vide Annexure-A, which reads as follows:

¶72

"Dear Sir,

¶73

JUNIOR ASSOCIATE (CS&S): TERMINATION OF SERVICES

¶74

We refer to Showcase Notice No. HR/RP/AS/251 dated 04.10.2023 and your reply letter dated 16.10.2023. In this regard we would like to inform you as under:

¶75

10 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:41562 WP No. 986 of 2024

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

2. You had applied for the post of "Junior Associates (CS &S) in clerical cadre in the Bank under CRPD Advertisement No. CRPD/CR/2022-23/15 dated 07.09.2022 and got selected under OBC OH Category.

¶79

3. As per the disclaimer given in point 18 of the advertisement dated 07.09.2022, the candidature will stand cancelled at any stage of recruitment in case it is detected that a candidate does not fulfil the eligibility norms and/or that he/she has furnished any incorrect false information or has suppressed any material fact(s).

¶80

4. As per the clause (w) in the letter of appointment dated 12.04.2023 issued to you, if there is any concealment or suppression of any material facts, the appointment shall be deemed invalid ab ab-initio and the same will lead to appropriate action including departmental action, removal/dismissal from service.

¶81

5. On verification of your antecedents from your previous employer, in terms of Offer of Appointment dated 23.03.2023, it is revealed that, you have not disclosed the fact of imposition of disciplinary action taken against you by your previous employer, in the Blo-data-cumattestation form submitted to the bank. The reply submitted by you in your letter dated 16.10.2023 to the effect that the omission was due to your limited knowledge regarding disciplinary matter and the related terminology is unacceptable.

¶82

6. As a result, your services stand terminated in terms of para (f) letter of appointment dated 12.04.2023, with immediate effect. Further, you will be paid one month's pay and allowance in lieu of the notice.

¶83

7. Please acknowledge receipt on the duplicate of this letter.

¶84

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

¶85

11 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:41562 WP No. 986 of 2024

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Assistant General Mariäger - HR"

¶89

From the perusal of the impugned order of termination vide Annexure-A, it discloses that the order of termination is not a simpliciter order, but it is a stigmatic order, which discloses that the petitioner has not disclosed about the order of censure passed by the earlier employer. The respondent, without holding an enquiry, has passed an order. It is a stigmatic order. If it is a stigmatic order, the respondent is duty bound to hold an enquiry in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pinky Meena (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:

¶90

"24. The services of a probationer could result either in a confirmation in the post or ended by way of termination simpliciter. However, if a probationer is terminated from service owing to a misconduct as a punishment, the termination would cause a stigma on him. If a probationer is unsuitable for a job and has been terminated then such a case is non-stigmatic as it is a termination simpliciter. Thus, the performance of a probationer has to be considered in order to ascertain whether it has been satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If the

¶91

12 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:41562 WP No. 986 of 2024

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

performance of a probationer has been unsatisfactory, he is liable to be terminated by the employer without conducting any inquiry. No right of hearing is also reserved with the probationer and hence, there would be no violation of principles of natural justice in such a case.

¶95

25. As noted, if a termination from service is not visited with any stigma and neither are there any civil consequences and nor is founded on misconduct, then, it would be a case of termination simpliciter. ... ... ..."

¶96

Further, the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nitin Sadashiv Khapne (supra). The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) in paragraph No.17. The Bombay High Court, considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, it is clear that the suppression of material facts lead to their cancellation, termination etc., but the suppression in respect of minor offences is not sufficient for cancellation,

¶97

13 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:41562 WP No. 986 of 2024

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

termination of service by the employer, though it is the discretion of the employer but the discretion should be utilised judiciously.

¶101

Admittedly, in the instant case, the order of censure was passed by the earlier employer and it is a minor offence and not the major offence. The respondent, without exercising discretion judicially, passed an order of termination vide Annexure-A.

¶102

Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kuldeep (supra). In the said case, the petitioner has concealed the material facts and the Bank had issued show-cause notice, the petitioner therein had replied to the said show-cause notice and Bank had provided opportunity to explain the reason, for suppressing material facts. Admittedly, in the instant case, no such opportunity was provided to the petitioner to express the alleged material of information/facts. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has considered the

¶103

14 -

¶104

NC: 2025:KHC:41562 WP No. 986 of 2024

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) and Avtar Singh (supra). In the said case the petitioner was implicated in the criminal cases and the FIRs were registered under Section 342, 323, 506, 34 of IPC. Admittedly in the instant case, no single criminal case is registered against the petitioner.

¶107

The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent are not applicable to the case on hand. The impugned order of termination passed by the respondent is a stigmatic order. Considering the expositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Pinky Meena (supra) and by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nitin Sadashiv Khapne (supra), the impugned order passed by the respondent violates of principle of natural justice, as no enquiry is held before passing the order of termination.

¶108

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶109

15 -

¶110

NC: 2025:KHC:41562 WP No. 986 of 2024

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

ORDER

¶113

i. The writ petition is allowed ;

¶114

ii. The impugned order of termination vide Annexure-A is quashed;

¶115

iii. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner and entitled for all consequential benefits;

¶116

iv. Liberty is reserved to the respondent-Bank to take appropriate action after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶117

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶118

PA

¶119

CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Mr Kuruva Somesh v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Kuruva Somesh v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G N Bhaskar Bhandary Vs University of Agricultural Sciences

Smt Shyamala Kumari Bevinje Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B S Shankara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Gangi Reddy K M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shivarudraiah Vs State of Karnataka

S Shivakumar Vs University of Agricultural Science