Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41368 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8879 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sameer Singh Respondent :- Bank Of Baroda, Thru. Chairman And Managing Director And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhineet Jaiswal,Chinmay Mishra,Gaurav Mehrotra,Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Prashant Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. Under challenge are the orders dated 15.05.2024, 15.07.2021 & 14.05.2020, copies of which have been filed as annexures 1, 2 & 3 respectively to the writ petition. 3. Vide order dated 14.05.2020, the petitioner had been dismissed from service on the ground of his conviction in a case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (In short "Act, 1988") read with Section 3 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act, 1988. 4. Vide order dated 15.07.2021, the appeal filed against the said order has been rejected. 5. Vide order dated 15.05.2024, the review filed by the petitioner after the conviction order had been set aside in criminal appeal vide judgment and order dated 28.07.2023, a copy of which is annexure 16 to the writ petition, has been rejected. 6. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had been convicted for the aforesaid offences under the provisions of the Act, 1988 by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2020, a copy of which is annexure 10 to the writ petition. 7. The same had resulted in the dismissal order of the petitioner and the appeal being rejected. 8. Being aggrieved with his conviction order, the petitioner had filed a criminal appeal which has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 28.07.2023, a copy of which is annexure 16 to the writ petition. 9. Considering the aforesaid, the petitioner filed a review before the reviewing authority which has been rejected vide order impugned dated 15.05.2024. 10. Argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that a perusal of the order impugned dated 15.05.2024 would indicate that the respondents have rejected the review on the ground that at the time of his employment in Dena Bank i.e the erstwhile bank prior to it being merged with Bank of Baroda, the petitioner had not disclosed the fact of his arrest at the time of joining in service of the erstwhile bank which amounts to suppression of material information about his past character/antecedent in the verification form of the bank. 11. Argument is that once the dismissal order and the rejection order of the appeal of the petitioner were all occasioned on account of he being convicted under the provisions of the Act, 1988 and subsequently, the said conviction order has been set aside in the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 28.07.2023 consequently, the respondents should have only considered this aspect of the matter only instead of rejecting the review of the petitioner on the ground to which the petitioner had never been confronted. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also tried to justify that at the time of his appointment with Dena Bank he had duly disclosed the fact of he having been arrested in a criminal case. However, the same may not detain the Court inasmuch as once the review had been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the dismissal order and the appellate order which had been passed, as indicated above, on the basis of his conviction under the provisions of the Act, 1988 which conviction has been set aside in the criminal appeal vide judgment and order dated 28.07.2023 consequently, the reviewing authority should have examined this aspect of the matter. 13. However, in case the reviewing authority was of the view that the petitioner has suppressed any fact at the time of his appointment in the erstwhile bank, the petitioner should have been confronted with the said fact and his version should have been taken but proceeding to pass the order without confronting the petitioner makes the order legally unsustainable in the eyes of law. 14. At this stage, Sri Prashant Kumar Srivastava has tried to justify the order impugned dated 15.05.2024 on the ground that the acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal appeal was not honorable. 15. The said argument merits to be rejected and is also rejected considering that the said fact does not find placed in the order dated 15.05.2024. 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned dated 15.05.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is set aside. 17. The reviewing authority is directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 21.09.2023 in accordance with law and the relevant rules which application would be considered within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 18. As an abundant precaution, it is provided that in case the respondents are proposing to take action against the petitioner on the ground of he having concealed any fact, it will always be open for them to proceed in accordance with law. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Pachhere/- Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench