Misrepresentation in Public Sector Bank: Who Can Issue a Show Cause Notice for Termination?

Case of Misrepresentation in a Public Sector Bank

This is a case of a public sector bank in India. An officer employee has joined the bank. Later, it is found that the officer has suppressed facts while joining the bank. In reality, the officer was working with another public sector bank and had not been relieved from the previous one, a fact not disclosed by the officer upon joining our bank.

Issuing a Show Cause Notice

Now, we must issue a show cause notice to the officer, questioning why the appointment should not be terminated as per the clause in the appointment letter. The question that arises is, who is the competent authority to issue the show cause notice and terminate the officer?

If there is any court verdict on this matter, please kindly share the same.

Normally, the appointing authority should sign the show cause notice. However, a lower-ranking officer can also do the same. The final termination order MUST be signed by the appointing authority. The Conduct, Discipline, and Appeal Rules, as may be applicable to the bank, will describe the procedure in dealing with the disciplinary matters.

Regards,
Cyril

Competent Authority for Disciplinary Action in Public Sector Banks

The appointing authority is competent to take disciplinary action and may delegate this function to a subordinate officer as well. In public sector banks, the Officers (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations contain a schedule that enumerates the list of officers who are competent to take disciplinary action against delinquent officers, depending on the pay scale of the officer concerned.

Normally, the competent authorities located in Controlling Offices, such as the Regional Offices, Zonal Offices, or Corporate Offices, will have jurisdiction over the officers working under their purview. Please review the schedule of your bank.

Regards,
B. Saikumar
HR & IR Advisor

Thank you for your response. We have decided to terminate the employee summarily by issuing a show cause letter due to misrepresentation of facts at the time of joining the services. There will be no charge sheet issued, which means the Disciplinary Authority will not be involved, and therefore, the Discipline & Appeal Regulation will not come into play in this situation.

Handling Termination for Suppression of Information

When you want to terminate an officer employee for suppression of information relating to their past employment, you are making an allegation against the officer employee, questioning their integrity and honesty. Therefore, they shall be given an opportunity to be heard in respect of the allegation made against them as per the requirement of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, they shall be served with a show-cause notice, calling for their explanation in respect of the allegations. If the same is not satisfactory, they shall be served with a charge sheet spelling out the charges, and a departmental inquiry shall be conducted into such charges as per the procedure laid down under the disciplinary rules of the bank. An appropriate penalty shall be passed only if they are found guilty of the charges.

If they are summarily terminated for suppression of vital information at the time of their employment, such terminations are likely to be termed as punitive but not simple and plain. They are likely to be set aside by the courts if the employee challenges them in the appropriate court. This is my view.

Regards,
B. Saikumar
HR & IR Advisor

As per my knowledge, an employee has the right to explain their position regarding the suppression of facts after receiving a show cause notice. In Public Sector Banks (PSB), some banks do not even provide a No Objection Certificate (NOC) when applying for jobs in other banks. Moreover, employees sometimes face discriminatory treatment from senior executives. There can be many reasons beyond an employee's control that may compel them to act in a certain way. For example, the current bank may require an NOC or a relieving letter from a previous employer, which the employee may not be able to obtain from the previous bank. In such cases, the employee can challenge the termination in court, where the court may set it aside based on the aforementioned grounds. As a bank employee, I have encountered such situations where we have had to listen to the employee and understand their perspective.

As Anonymous said, a candidate/employee might have done everything right, such as giving notice or paying notice pay to the former employer, submitting a resignation, and properly handing over charge. However, he might be denied a relieving letter by the employer to express his anger at his departure. The candidate, fearing the loss of a public sector job, might have suppressed the fact of his previous employment. Alternatively, he might have been unemployed when applying for a job at the bank and indicated his employment status as such in his application. Subsequently, he got employed and felt it unnecessary to reveal his updated employment status. Such reasons might be innocuous and may not be serious enough to cost him a job, or there could be more serious issues he wishes to conceal.

Therefore, it is essential to gather the facts and listen to the concerned employee to enable the competent authority to make a prudent decision. It is crucial to investigate not only the act of information suppression but also whether the concealed information is severe enough to warrant termination. The courts may delve into these matters.

Regards,
B. Saikumar
HR & IR Advisor

Authority to Terminate Services of a Probationer

The competent authority is the functionary responsible for terminating the services of a probationer. However, in this case, it seems the probationer has resigned, and the other bank has not relieved them from their services. This is a failure on the part of the other bank, not the employee.

Secondly, the letter in question holds no value if the other bank fails to take appropriate action against the employee within the prescribed time. This situation benefits the employee, as it is not necessary to inform the current employing bank, given that the elapsed time is a crucial advantage for the employee.

When an employee's services are satisfactory and meet expectations, there is no need to harass them regarding issues with another bank's employment. Suppression or hidden facts should not create a barrier between the current employee and employer unless there are criminal issues that justify such strong action.

Best of luck.