CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS versus ASHOK DUBEY AND OTHERS

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 08-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS 
v. 
ASHOK DUBEY AND OTHERS 
DECEMBER 8, 1992 
B 
[M.H. KANIA, CJ., S. MOHAN AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.J 
Selection for appointment-Post of Assistant Provident Fund commis-
sione~ffer of appointment-Can4idate working in Bank-Not relieved be-
cause of pending departmental proceedings which later culminated in 
C punishment-vigilance clearance and integrity certificates not forth-com-
ing--Cancellation of offe1'-Whether valid. 
The first respondent was an officer in Canara Bank. He was one of 
the candidates recommended by the U.P.S.C. for the post of Assistant 
Provident Fund Commissioner in the appellant-organisation. An offer was 
D 
made for the said post and he accepted the same. However, he requested 
three months' time for joining as lie had to give 3 months' notice to the 
Bank, where he was employed. Thereafter the respondent sent his notice 
of resignation and reqµested the Bank for No Objection Certificate to 
enable him to join the new post. The a~pellant-Organisation requested the 
E 
Bank to waive the condition of 3 months' notice in respect of the Respon-
dent whose services were urgently required by it. Tht; Respondent was 
already found fit on medical examination and his antecedents were cleared 
on Police verification. When Vigilance Clearance Certificate was called 
from the Bank, it informed the appellant that some disciplinary proceed-
ings initiated against the Respondent were pending and so his resignation 
F 
could not be accepted. Consequently the offer of appointment made to the 
Respondent was cancelled. 
Aggrieved against the cancellation of the offer of appointment, the 
Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. It was 'directed 
G by the High Court that the Respondent's resignation should be accepted, 
and he should be permitted to join the new post in the appellant-organisa-
tion. Being aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, the appellant-or-
ganisation preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf ofthe appellant it was contended that the Writ Petition was 
H disposed of on merits without affording an opportunity to the appellant, that 
·428 
L.M.SHARMA
( 
-
C.P.F. COMMR v. ASHOK DUBEY 
429 
the offer of appointment was valid only for a period of9 months; thatthe offer A 
of appointment was clear that the Respondent would be allowed to join only 
on valid discharge from the Bank; that Vigilance clearance and Integrity 
Certificate were absolutely necessary and in the absence of these formalities, 
the appellant was justified in cancelling the offer of appointment. 
The Respondent contended that since the appellant did not file any B 
counter affidavit despite ample opportunity afforded, he could not make 
any grievance at this stage; that in view of the appellant's letter informing 
the Respondent that his appointment is with held till that final decision is 
talcen by the disciplinary authority of the Bank, the appellant was 
precluded from cancelling the offer of appointment after the finalisation C 
of the disciplinary proceedings; that he was never informed that the offer 
of appointment was valid only for 9 months; and that the No Objection 
Ce~ificate issued by the Bank was sufficient evidence of the Respondent's 
integrity. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. It is clear that though the respondent was selected and an 
offer of appointment was made as Assistant Provident Fun.d ComQiis-
sioner, because of his failure to obtain vigilance clearance certificate and 
D 
the integrity certificate, and in the absence of a relief order from the 
employer the appellant was not in a position to issue the order of appoint-
E 
ment. The High Court had completely misdirected itself in this regard. 
(435 C,DJ 
2.1. Trust and confidence constitute the hallmark of a banking 
institution. The respondent had been subject to disciplinary proceedings F 
and they were pending at that time. The relief order had not been issued 
by the Bank. Hence the order cancelling the offer of appointment came to 
be passed. The appellant had every right to do so. (435 ·E] 
2.2. No doubt subsequently the departmental proceedings had come to G 
an end, but the respondent was awarded the punishment of withholding one 
increment with cumulative effect as also the recovery of loss caused. to the 
Bank. Though his original punishment was later on modified as withholding 
of one increment with cumulative effect and no recovery ofloss to be made yet 
there is no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.