Conditional confirmation terms preclude deemed confirmation despite expiry of the probationary period.

The Petitioner, an ex-Army personnel, was appointed as a Bank Guard by the Respondent Bank via an appointment letter dated June 27, 2022

The letter placed him on a six-month probation and explicitly stated that confirmation was subject to satisfactory police verification of his character and antecedents

During the recruitment process, the Petitioner filled out a bio-data-cum-attestation form where he left Column 15 blank and answered "No" to Column 16 regarding pending criminal cases

A subsequent police verification report dated December 20, 2022, revealed that FIR No. 129/2014 was pending against the Petitioner at the time of his joining, although he was later acquitted on December 8, 2022

The Bank issued show-cause notices—initially labeled "disciplinary proceedings"—and subsequently terminated the Petitioner’s services on August 9, 2023, by invoking Paragraph 522(1) of the Sastri Award, citing suppression of material facts

The Petitioner challenged the termination, asserting he had attained "deemed confirmation" after six months and could not be terminated without a full disciplinary inquiry

1. Whether the Petitioner attained the status of a confirmed employee by operation of law upon the expiry of the six-month probationary period.

2. Whether the termination of the Petitioner’s service for suppression of a pending criminal case was valid, notwithstanding his subsequent acquittal.

3. Whether the Bank was required to conduct a formal departmental inquiry under the disciplinary framework rather than dispensing with services under probationary clauses.

The court primarily interpreted Clause 495 of the Sastri Award, which provides for a six-month probation period and "deemed confirmation" if services are not dispensed with, unless the framework requires a further act for confirmation

It relied on the tripartite classification of probation established in High Court of M.P. v. Satya Narayan Jhavar, which distinguishes cases where confirmation is contingent upon the employer’s satisfaction or specific conditions

Regarding the suppression of criminal antecedents, the court applied the principles from Avtar Singh v. Union of India, emphasizing that the employer has the right to consider suitability

Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, which establishes that acquittal does not efface the fact of suppression at the time of recruitment

The court reasoned that Clause 495 of the Sastri Award cannot be read in isolation from the specific terms of the appointment letter

Since the appointment letter explicitly made confirmation contingent upon "satisfactory reports" of character and antecedents, the case fell into the third category of the Satya Narayan Jhavar framework, where confirmation is not automatic by mere efflux of time but requires an affirmative act by the employer

Consequently, the Petitioner remained a probationer

On the issue of suppression, the court found that the Petitioner failed to disclose the pending FIR in his attestation form, which is a material omission regardless of whether it was a "mistake" or if the case ended in acquittal

The court further clarified that the Bank’s use of the term "disciplinary proceedings" in preliminary notices did not transform a probationary discharge into a punitive dismissal, as the Bank was entitled to inquire into facts before deciding on a probationer's suitability

The court concluded that truthful disclosure is essential for assessing suitability in bank employment and the subsequent acquittal did not rectify the initial suppression

The termination under Paragraph 522(1) of the Sastri Award was upheld as legally valid