C.W.P. No.10887 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10887 of 2011 Date of Decision. 04.07.2011 Shyambir son of Shri Sultan Singh resident of H.No.324, Banjara Gali, Haiderpur Delhi-88 ......Petitioner Versus Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai through Executive Director and Appellate Authority and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction that the respondent- Management in UCO Bank shall take action against the 5th respondent for an alleged willful concealment of a conviction before he sought employment. It is an admitted case that the 5th respondent has secured an employment more than 20 years back and the petitioner, who is the brother-in-law of the 5th respondent, has suddenly found for some personal reasons a cause for complaint against the 5th respondent that he had concealed his conviction for some offence under Excise Act for carrying bottles of liquor. In one of the communications to the Bank, the Management has responded that it was a serious matter and it was looking into the complaint. The grievance of the petitioner is that they C.W.P. No.10887 of 2011 -2- have not finalized the investigation on the basis of information supplied by the petitioner. 2. The criminal offence for which a conviction has been made against the 5th respondent is reported to be an incident which had taken place in the year 1975. It is not as if the petitioner did not know about the 5th respondent's alleged conviction but he has thought it fit to raise this issue only now with the Management. It is not an action, in my view, spirited by any public interest but more a method of securing personal scores against the 5th respondent. If a conviction has resulted in the year 1975, the 5th respondent has secured an employment in a Bank more than 30 years back and he has continued without any cause for complaint by management. I do not find that it should be a matter that should be raked up at this length of time. A cliched expression every saint has a past and every sinner has a future must be understood in the context of how a person had secured an employment in a public sector bank more than 30 years back is found the target of attack by his own close relative that he shall not be continued in service for what he did in the year 1975. If the Management has not found any reason to remove him, the petitioner has no locus standi to seek for direction in the manner sought for. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 04, 2011 Pankaj*