Suppression of a pending criminal case in police verification justifies termination under Rule 8 of GDS Rules.

The applicant was engaged as a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster at Kharidih Branch Office on 26 September 2023 and joined duty on 5 October 2023, subject to verification of his certificates and police antecedents.

An FIR, No. 123/2020, had been registered against him under Sections 419, 420, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant contended that he had disclosed the criminal case in his police verification form and that the case was subsequently closed pursuant to a final report accepted by the Magistrate on 25 April 2024.

The respondents asserted that the applicant had stated in the police verification form that no criminal case had ever been registered against him and had thereby concealed the FIR.

After issuing a communication seeking his explanation on the basis of the adverse police verification report dated 14 July 2025, the Superintendent of Post Offices terminated his provisional engagement forthwith under Rule 8 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, by order dated 13 April 2026.

The applicant’s appeal dated 8 June 2026 remained pending when he approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the termination, reinstatement, back wages and consequential benefits.

Whether the respondents were justified in terminating the applicant’s provisional engagement under Rule 8 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, on the ground that he had concealed the registration of a criminal case in his police verification form?

Whether the subsequent closure of the criminal case and the applicant’s assertion that he had disclosed the FIR warranted interference with the termination order dated 13 April 2026?

Whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement, back wages and other consequential benefits?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The provisional engagement order stipulated that engagement was subject to verification of certificates and police antecedents, and that engagement could be terminated if the candidate was found unfit on police verification or if information furnished by the candidate was false or incorrect.

Rule 8 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 permits termination of a GDS who has rendered less than three years’ continuous engagement by one month’s notice or payment in lieu of notice; it also permits forthwith termination upon payment of the prescribed allowance.

Under the note to Rule 8, a GDS whose engagement is terminated under that Rule is not eligible for GDS gratuity or severance benefits.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ case that the applicant had not disclosed the pending FIR in his police verification form.

It relied particularly on the Superintendent’s letter dated 14 July 2025, which recorded that the applicant had stated that no criminal case had ever been instituted against him, whereas the police verification report disclosed FIR No. 123/2020.

In light of the express conditions of provisional engagement, the Tribunal treated the non-disclosure as concealment of material information and held that the respondents were entitled to take action under Rule 8.

The later submission of a final report and its acceptance by the Magistrate did not, in the Tribunal’s view, eliminate the material fact that the FIR was pending when the applicant applied for and obtained provisional engagement.

Since the applicant had served for less than three years and the termination order provided for payment in lieu of notice, the statutory requirements of Rule 8 were found to have been satisfied.

It found no ground to interfere with the termination order dated 13 April 2026 and dismissed the Original Application at the admission stage.

The claims for reinstatement, back wages and consequential benefits were consequently rejected.

No order as to costs was made, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.