Madras HC upholds order on dismissal of bank employee

The Madras High Court has upheld a single judge order justifying the action of a nationalised bank which dismissed an employee from service for suppressing facts about his educational qualification while applying for the post of part-time house keeper.
A division bench comprising Justices Huluvadi G Ramesh and S Vaidyanathan had recently dismissed the appeal filed by one P Sudalaimuthu challenging the single judge order passed in 2014.
Referring to various judgments, the bench observed that when a company or an industry prescribes a specific qualification for appointment to a specific post, the candidate who applies for the called-for post must strictly adhere to the conditions.

"The appellant herein, knowing very well that the post of part-time House Keeper, at the most requires an VIII standard fail, concealed his VIII standard pass and applied for the said post that he had passed only Vth standard and also produced his Transfer Certificate to that effect," it said.
Holding that the suppression of fact was a gross misconduct, more particularly in service matters, the court said, "We confirm the order of the single judge, holding that the act of the bank is perfectly justified."
The petitioner submitted that Union Bank of India had invited applications for the post of part-time House Keeper, by an advertisement in 2008.

The minimum educational qualification for the post of a House Keeper was a second standard pass or eighth standard fail.

The petitioner, belonging to scheduled caste, submitted that he had applied for the post by mentioning that he had passed only fifth standard.
Subsequently, after selection process, the petitioner was shortlisted and appointed on August 20, 2008 for the post of part-time House Keeper.
The same year, when the bank had called for applications from prospective candidates for the post of Peon, the petitioner had applied for the post by declaring that he had passed eighth standard.
The bank, which found the discrepancy, issued a charge memo to the petitioner in 2010 and sought an explanation for concealment of material information.

Unable to accept the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Disciplinary authority ordered an inquiry, which revealed that he had knowingly concealed the information about his educational qualification, and it concluded that the charges were proved beyond doubt.
The petitioner was later dismissed from service.