AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
“(i)That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass the direction to quash impugned letter dated 09.10.2025 which is not justified in parameter of the provisions of law as well as provisions of natural justice, even the Hon’ble Apex Court full bench decision in Avtar Singh case likewise that Hon’ble High Court Allahabad passed the decision Anil Kumar case in light of that the impugned letter dated 09.10.2025 is liable to be quashed.
(ii)That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously further also be pleased to pass the direction commanding the respondent No. 3 (The Inspector of Post Offices Bageshwar (N) Sub Division Bageshwar) to reinstate the applicant in the service and allow to deliver the duty.
(iii)That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to issue any order or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv)To award the cost of the petition in favour of the applicant”.
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant applied online on 29.07.2024, pursuant to the notification issued by the Department of Posts, for the post of GDS ABPM, Dangoli SO, Almora Division, Uttarakhand. He was shortlisted for the said post. Thereafter, the applicant appeared before the Superintendent of Post Offices, Almora, on 18.11.2024 for verification of his educational and other documents. His documents were verified and found in order. Subsequently, he was directed to undergo the required formalities and training. After Central Administrative Tribunalcompleting the training and other pre-engagement formalities, the applicant was provisionally engaged as GDS ABPM, Dangoli SO, vide order dated 23.12.2024. He joined and took charge of the post on 24.12.2024. Thereafter, the applicant's police verification report was received in May 2025. Subsequently, while the applicant had applied for correction of his category in the departmental portal, the respondents examined the matter and found the police verification report to be unsatisfactory. On the basis of the said police verification report, the applicant was terminated from engagement vide memo dated 09.10.2025. Aggrieved by the said order of termination, the applicant has filed the present Original Application before this Tribunal seeking appropriate relief.
The respondents stated in the counter affidavit that the applicant applied online on 29.07.2024 for the post of GDS ABPM, Dangoli SO, Almora Division, Uttarakhand. He was shortlisted and appeared for document verification on 18.11.2024. His educational and other documents were verified and he was thereafter allowed to complete the required training and pre-engagement formalities. He was provisionally engaged as GDS ABPM, Dangoli SO, vide order dated 23.12.2024 and took charge on 24.12.2024. Thereafter, the police verification report in respect of the applicant was received from the concerned District Magistrate in May 2025. On examination of the said report, the same was found unsatisfactory. The applicant had also submitted an application on 08.10.2025 for correction of his category in the departmental portal. On scrutiny of the records, the respondents found that the applicant was not suitable for continuation of engagement in view of the adverse police verification report. Accordingly, his provisional engagement was terminated vide memo dated 09.10.2025. Hence, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
The applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit as filed by the respondents refuting the contentions made by the respondents in their Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and nothing new has been added.
I have heard Shri S.D. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was duly shortlisted for the post of GDS ABPM, Dangoli SO and, after verification of his documents. He completed the required training and other pre-engagement formalities. Thereafter, he was provisionally engaged vide order dated 23.12.2024 and joined the post on 24.12.2024. Thus, the applicant was already permitted to join and perform his duties. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant has not been convicted in any criminal case. The police verification report only mentions registration of three cases under the Excise Act and submission of charge-sheets. Mere registration or pendency of a criminal case cannot be treated as proof of guilt. It was further submitted that there is no allegation that the applicant suppressed or concealed any material fact or furnished any false information. Therefore, the case of the applicant is not one of suppression or false declaration. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471 and submitted that, even where a criminal case is pending, the employer is required to consider the nature of the offence and other relevant circumstances before taking a decision. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2020 Supreme Court 2829 and submitted that the criminal antecedents of a candidate cannot be considered in isolation and that the authority is required to examine the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the other relevant circumstances before taking a decision regarding his suitability for appointment or continuation in service. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the respondents have relied upon Central Administrative Tribunalthe police verification report and have not considered the nature of the alleged offences or the suitability of the applicant for the post of GDS ABPM. No reason has been recorded as to why the applicant was found unsuitable for the post. It was also submitted that the applicant was terminated without giving him any opportunity to explain the circumstances mentioned in the police verification report. The impugned order dated 09.10.2025 does not show any independent consideration of the relevant facts. Therefore, it was submitted that the impugned termination order is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 be set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate the applicant in service in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and Pawan Kumar (supra).
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was only provisionally engaged as GDS ABPM and such engagement was subject to satisfactory verification of his character and antecedents. Therefore, mere provisional engagement and joining of the post did not create an absolute right in favour of the applicant to continue in service. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that during the process of police verification, a report was received from the concerned authority showing three criminal cases against the applicant under the Excise Act. It was also reported that charge-sheets had been submitted before the competent court. On examination of the said report, the competent authority found the applicant unsuitable for continuation of his engagement. It was argued that the employer is entitled to verify the character and antecedents of a person before allowing him to continue in service. The judgments in Avtar Singh (supra) and Pawan Kumar (supra) does not give an automatic right of appointment or continuation merely because the candidate has not been convicted or has disclosed the criminal cases. The said judgment itself recognizes the right of the employer to consider the antecedents of the candidate and to take an appropriate Central Administrative Tribunaldecision depending upon the nature of the offence, nature of the post and other relevant circumstances. Learned counsel for the respondents next submitted that competent authority considered the police verification report and, thereafter, passed the order dated 09.10.2025. The order is based on the material available on record and does not suffer from any illegality. Hence, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
It is not in dispute that the applicant was shortlisted for the post of GDS ABPM, Dangoli SO and thereafter his documents were verified. He completed the required training and other pre-engagement formalities and was provisionally engaged vide order dated 23.12.2024. He joined and took charge on 24.12.2024. Subsequently, the police verification report was received in May 2025. On the basis of the said report, the respondents found the applicant unsuitable and terminated his engagement vide order dated 09.10.2025.
From the police verification report placed on record, it appears that three criminal cases were shown against the applicant under the Excise Act and charge-sheets had been submitted before the competent court. However, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant has been convicted in any of the said cases. The police report only records the registration of the criminal cases and submission of charge-sheets.
The main question which arises for consideration is whether the respondents were justified in terminating the engagement of the applicant merely on the basis of the police verification report, without considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471. The relevant portion of Avtar Singh (supra) case is reproduced below:-
“28.What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by concerned authorities considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.
29.The ‘McCarthyism’ is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service.
30.We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
(1)Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
(2)While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information. The employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
(3)The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
(4)In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted : -
(1)In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
(2)Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
(3)If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
(5)In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
(6)In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
(7)In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
(8)If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
(9)In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
(10)For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
(11)Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him”.
Central Administrative Tribunal12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar (supra) has also held as under:-
“13.What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What has been noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service”.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), has observed that where the candidate has truthfully disclosed the pendency of a criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider his antecedents, but the decision has to be taken by applying the relevant rules/instructions and by considering the nature of the offence, the nature of the post and other relevant circumstances. Thus, Avtar Singh (supra) does not lay down that mere pendency of a criminal case automatically makes a candidate unfit for appointment.
In the present case, there is no allegation that the applicant suppressed or falsely disclosed any information regarding the criminal cases. The respondents have also not brought on record any material to show that the applicant has been convicted by any competent court. The cases mentioned in the police verification report are under the Excise Act and the report merely states that charge-sheets have been submitted.
It is also relevant that the applicant was provisionally engaged after document verification, training and completion of the required pre-engagement formalities. Therefore, before terminating his engagement, the respondents were required to consider the nature of the alleged offences, the stage of the criminal proceedings, the duties attached to the post of GDS ABPM and the overall suitability of the applicant. The impugned order does not show that such a consideration was made.
It is also relevant to mention here that pendency of a criminal case cannot be treated as a finding of guilt. In the present case, there is no conviction against the applicant. The respondents have mainly relied upon the police verification report without recording any independent finding as to why the applicant was unsuitable for the particular post of GDS ABPM.
Thus, I am of the view that that the respondents have not properly considered the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and Pawan Kumar (supra). The impugned order dated 09.10.2025 does not disclose proper consideration of the nature of the offences, the stage of the criminal cases, the nature of the post and the fact that there is no conviction against the applicant. The decision, therefore, cannot be sustained in its present form.
Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed and the impugned termination memo dated 09.10.2025 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant on the post of GDS ABPM, Dangoli SO. If the said post is not vacant, applicant be adjusted some other suitable place and post. It is clarified that applicant will not be entitled for back wages for the period during which he was out of job. Respondents, if so advised, may proceed to take further decision but after affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant in accordance with law. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.