# Sachin Kumar Verma v. Bank of Baroda & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 478
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-14
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 21633 of 2019
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sachin-kumar-verma-v-bank-of-baroda-ors-45357
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law
- Appointment
- An
appointment letter was issued to the petitioner
but before joining he was implicated in a criminal
case. He voluntarily brought this to the
knowledge
of
the
respondent-Bank.
The
respondent- Bank had granted one year time for
joining with a condition that he should come with
an order of acquittal. Due to no fault of the
petitioner, the proceedings in the court could not
conclude within a period of 1 year. As soon he
got acquitted in the case, he filed representation
for joining. The Court noted that though it is the
discretion lies with the employer (bank) to take a
decision in the matter to retain the person or not.
But it must be reasonably exercised in the
background of circumstances of the case which
may differ from case to case. (Paras 12, 13)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2016) 8 SCC page 471
(followed)

## Text

478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)10ILR A478
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.10.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Service Single No. 21633 of 2019

Sachin Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
Bank of Baroda & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ajay "Madhavan"

Counsel for the Respondents:
Lalit Shukla

A. Service Law
- Appointment
- An
appointment letter was issued to the petitioner
but before joining he was implicated in a criminal
case. He voluntarily brought this to the
knowledge
of
the
respondent-Bank.
The
respondent- Bank had granted one year time for
joining with a condition that he should come with
an order of acquittal. Due to no fault of the
petitioner, the proceedings in the court could not
conclude within a period of 1 year. As soon he
got acquitted in the case, he filed representation
for joining. The Court noted that though it is the
discretion lies with the employer (bank) to take a
decision in the matter to retain the person or not.
But it must be reasonably exercised in the
background of circumstances of the case which
may differ from case to case. (Paras 12, 13)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2016) 8 SCC page 471
(followed)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sr Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been
preferred for quashing the orders dated
30.03.2019 passed by Opposite Party No.3;
dated 26.07.2018 passed by Opposite Party
No.1 and order dated 19.06.2018 passed by
Opposite Party No.2, rejecting the candidature
of
the
petitioner
for
appointment
as
Probationary Officer.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that vide letter dated 2.5.2017 an
appointment has been given to the petitioner on
the post of Probationary Officer
after
successfully completing the Diploma Course in
Banking & Finance followed by essential
training program & Internship at Deva Branch
of Bank of Baroda. Petitioner was given time to
join by 17.05.2017. After the issuance of the
appointment letter and prior to joining, an F.I.R.
was lodged on 9.5.2017, in which the petitioner
was falsely implicated. He was enlarged on bail
on 27.05.2017. On being enlarged on bail,
petitioner
immediately
informed
the
respondent-Bank on 31.05.2017 about the false
implication of the petitioner in the criminal case
and lodging of an F.I.R. The Bank has informed
the petitioner that the Competent Authority had
taken a decision that his candidature may be
kept in abeyance till his acquittal, not exceeding
more than one year, failing which the
candidature of the petitioner would stand
cancelled.

4. The petitioner made his earnest effort
for expeditious disposal of the criminal case
by approaching the High Court. But time that
it takes in court proceedings is beyond the
control of the petitioner. When one year was
to expire, the petitioner made a representation
on 7.5.2018 and 19.06.2018 for extension of
time for a few months but the petitioner
received no reply.

5. The petitioner was acquitted in the
criminal case vide order / judgement dated
10 All. Sachin Kumar Verma Vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors.
479
23.01.2019. The petitioner immediately
made a representation dated 28.01.2019
alongwith copy of the judgement passed in
the criminal case before the Authority for
his joining. But the Competent Authority
has rejected the representation of the
petitioner by order dated 30.03.2019 solely
on the ground that the petitioner has not
submitted the order of acquittal within the
stipulated time i.e. by 20.07.2018, and then
the Bank could not grant unlimited time to
the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondent-Bank has submitted that
the petitioner has been acquitted after the
time granted by the Bank for joining and
the Bank cannot wait for unlimitted period.
It is further submitted that the petitioner
cannot be permitted to joint for the reason
that his acquittal is not an honourable
acquittal.

7. After hearing learned counsel for
the respective parties, the case that emerges
is that the appointment letter was issued on
2.5.2017 and thereafter the petitioner was
implicated in a criminal case on 9.5.2017.
The Bank had granted one year time for
joining with a condition that the petitioner
comes with an order of acquittal. The
petitioner has not left any stone unturned
for early adjudication of the case, even by
approaching the High Court but the legal
process takes its own time, which is beyond
the control of the petitioner. The petitioner
also requested for extension of time by
making representation, but the petitioner
received
no
response
thereof.
The
petitioner was acquitted vide judgment /
order dated 23.01.2019 i.e. about 5 months
later beyond 20.07.2018, the time provided
by the respondent-Bank. The contention of
the counsel for the respondent - Bank is
that the petitioner was not acquitted
honourably, but acquitted by giving benefit
of doubt this is however refuted by the
counsel for the petitioner. However, this is
not the reason given by the Bank. The only
reason assigned in the impugned order is
that the petitioner had given his joining
after the time granted by the Bank and the
Bank cannot wait for unlimited time.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of
Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors,
reported in (2016) 8 SCC page 471 has
discussed and decided almost all the
eventualities pertaining to disclosure, nondisclosure;
disclosure
of
pendency;
conviction or acquittal in criminal case
against the candidate and its effect on
employment etc. and ultimately it has been
held that the discretion lies with the
employer to take a decision in the matter to
give or retain the person or not.

9. On inquiring that under which
provision, the one year period was granted
to the petitioner keeping his appointment in
abeyance.
Both
the
counsels
have
submitted that there is no such hard and
fast rule for the same. It is the discretion of
the Bank. If the Bank has exercised its
discretion in favour of the petitioner by
granting one year time, then the things
which are beyond the control of the
petitioner i.e. to get the matter adjudicated
within time granted by the Bank for
rejecting the candidature of the petitioner
does not appear to be reasonable and
appropriate.

10. In the present circumstances of
the case, it should have been proper for
the Bank to consider in totality of facts
and circumstances whether grant of
further time for 5 months beyond 1 year
would amount waiting for indefinite
period of time or not.
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. The conduct of the petitioner
cannot be ignored. He had himself
voluntarily brought this fact to the notice of
Bank about false case against him a few
days before he was required to join on the
post of Probationary Officer. He also
approached the High Court. Taking all
these facts into consideration, the Bank
should have exercised its discretion in a
more reasonable manner to allow him to
join the post instead of depriving him of the
employment on the basis of some delay in
decision of the case which was beyond his
control.

12. It is true in similar circumstances
an employer is to take its decision. It is
solely its discretion. Once it is decided to
exercise
its
discretion,
it
must
be
reasonably exercised in the background of
circumstances of the case which may differ
from case to case. It is not meant to be said
that any indefinite and unreasonably long
time may always be granted. The fact
cannot escape notice that the Bank has not
shown any development in 5 months which
could cause hurdle in the way of the Bank
to permit him to join on the post.

13. It is to be noted that the petitioner was
found fit for the appointment after completion
of his training which the petitioner had
undergone as prescribed by the Bank. The
petitioner was actually appointed on the post of
Probationary Officer but unfortunately before
the date of joining a false case was registered
against the petitioner and the petitioner had very
honestly and voluntarily disclosed this fact to
the Authorities. The Bank did not decide to
deny the employment to the petitioner on the
ground of pendency of criminal case. It all
related to the question of time allowable to join.

14. In view of the discussion held
above, it is found that the Bank did not
consider the question of grant further time
to the petitioner to join in a reasonable
manner rather arbitrarily in the facts and
circumstances of the case. The impugned
orders
dated
30.03.2019
passed
by
Respondent No.3, impugned order dated
26.07.2018 passed by Respondent No.1 and
impugned order dated 19.06.2018 passed
by Respondent No.3 are quashed.

15. The respondent-Bank is directed
to permit the petitioner to join in pursuance
of letter of appointment dated 2.5.2017 on
the post of Probationary Officer within a
period of six weeks from the date of
downloaded copy of the order from the
website of the High Court is served.

16. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2020)10ILR A480
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.09.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.

Service Single No. 24928 of 2019

Shivnandan Prasad Pandey & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Manish Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - U.P. District Offices
(Collectorates) Ministerial Service Rules,
1980 - Rule 5 - U.P. District Offices
(Collectorates) Ministerial Service (Second
Amendment) Rules, 2011- Rule 5(ii)-
Recruitment/Appointment.