• Left company, not mentioned it in bank recruitment

I worked in a company for exact 3 weeks,and had to leave as the position I was working in,was completely different from the one shown during recruitment. I emailed them about the decision,and they said ok,but no certificate would be given, such as experience certificate,relieving certificate as 3 weeks was too short a period. I received 1 cheque for those 21 days I worked there,where a partial amount of my first month's salary was given. 

So I have not mentioned this in my work experience form when applying for a Bank . Now I am selected in it ,in case they find out that I worked in that particular company for 3 weeks, will that be an issue,as I have not mentioned it in their work experience form ? I heard many banks may right away terminate services if they get to know any sort of information was suppressed by the candidates. However for any position we worked in, banks require that we show all the certificates- the joining letter,experience certificate,character certificate from the employer,pay slips and relieving letter, and I cannot obtain these from the company, so I am feeling a bit tensed, please could you help me out here, would be really grateful .
Asked 1 year ago in Business Law from Bangalore, Karnataka
1) you should never suppress any material information 

2) it is better you inform the bank before you join that you had worked for 3 weeks with another organisation 

3)you must be having your appointment letter and acceptance of your resignation by the company 

4) in the event subsequently bank discovered suppression of facts it can take disciplinary action against you 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23155 Answers
1216 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Andhra High Court
Y. Sangameshwar Rao vs State Bank Of Hyderabad And Ors. on 18 October, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005 (6) ALD 832
Author: R Ranganathan
Bench: R Ranganathan
JUDGMENT Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

 In the present case, the fact, that the petitioner had suppressed his earlier employment with APSRTC, is not in dispute. Even in the general norm of behaviour, as held in A.L. Kalra (supra) and B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), supressio veri and suggestio falsi would undoubtedly constitute misconduct. In Rasiklal (supra) the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the punishment imposed on an employee on his being found guilty of suppression of material fact. While "suppression of material fact" is not specifically enumerated amongst the acts of "gross misconduct" in para 19.5 of the Bipartite settlement, the charge-sheet refers to para 19.5(j) of the Bipartite settlement which provides that "doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss" would amount to gross misconduct. Would this act "of suppression of fact of his previous employment" not constitute an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank?. The answer has necessarily to be in the affirmative and such an act of misconduct would undoubtedly fall within the expression "gross misconduct" under para 19.5(j) of the Bipartite settlement. As held in Glaxo Laboratories (supra), while the provisions of para 19.5 of bipartite settlement would undoubtedly require strict interpretation, since it is a penal provision based on which an employee, if found guilty, is liable to be imposed the penalties specified in para 19.6, even on a strict construction of Para 19.5(j), the act of misconduct alleged against the petitioner would undoubtedly fall within the expression "acts prejudicial to the interests of the bank". A person who has suppressed his previous employment, while seeking employment in a public institution like the respondent-bank, has certainly committed an act which is prejudicial to the interests of the bank and has thereby committed an act of "gross misconduct" under para 19.5 of the bipartite settlement. As held in Rasiklal (supra), since the petitioner is admittedly guilty of suppression of material facts which would weigh with any employer in giving him employment, it is certainly not a case which would merit exercise of discretion in his favour under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23155 Answers
1216 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
in any case you ought to have disclosed fact about your earlier employment 

i have reproduced material extracts of judgement of andhra pradesh HC wherein it has been held to be gross misconduct and disciplinary action of stoppage of 5 increments was taken by the bank
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23155 Answers
1216 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. Well, you should have informed them about your past experience , more so, your resignation was accepted.
2. Have an informal talk with them and if they assure then inform this to them officially.
3. Since the misinformation is innocuous in nature I do not think you are going to be harmed.
Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
5181 Answers
54 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
1. If your employer discovers about your past employment you may be dismissed for suppression of information. Furthermore, a criminal prosecution for cheating may also be lodged against you.

2. You should hope and pray that your current employer never discovers the information which was concealed by you.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18083 Answers
447 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
in case they find out that I worked in that particular company for 3 weeks, will that be an issue,as I have not mentioned it in their work experience form ?

Work experience with a private company for bank employment is not necessary especially if you were recruited by the bank.  There is no suppression of any fact that requires for the offer of this employment. 




 I heard many banks may right away terminate services if they get to know any sort of information was suppressed by the candidates.

You have been wrongly told or misguided about this issue.  The bank has no concern with your private employment until you have suppressed the fact of any punitive action in the form of conviction by court due to fraud played while in the previous employment. 



However for any position we worked in, banks require that we show all the certificates- the joining letter,experience certificate,character certificate from the employer,pay slips and relieving letter, and I cannot obtain these from the company, so I am feeling a bit tensed, 

The 21 days of employment with a private company cannot be considered as an experience by any company or the bank as well, so nothing to worry about it. 



The formal resignation and relieving letter from the previous employer is not mandatory for a 21 days employment, your worries are unnecessary. 
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
13964 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. Yes, yours is a dicey situation,

2. Practically you have no other alternative other than suppressing the fact of your 21 days employment,

3. You have only one evidence that you worked with them which is theb salary check for 21 days,

4. Ensure that the Bank does not come to know about it.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12084 Answers
228 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. Yes. This is the reason why it is not a bad decision on your part to suppress the said information of your 21 days employment,

2. had you mentioned that, you would not have been recruited for not submitting the release letter from your 21 days company.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12084 Answers
228 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Business Lawyers

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
13964 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23155 Answers
1216 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18083 Answers
447 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12084 Answers
228 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
5181 Answers
54 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3523 Answers
129 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
868 Answers
43 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2731 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Lakshmi Kanth
Advocate, Hyderabad
223 Answers
2 Consultations
4.8 on 5.0
Shashidhar S. Sastry
Advocate, Bangalore
1233 Answers
59 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0