Termination based on concealed trivial criminal case from minority requires re-examination and reasoned order.

The applicant, Brijesh Yadav, was provisionally engaged as a Gramin Dak Sevak, Assistant Branch Post Master (GDS ABPM) on September 22, 2023, and subsequently took charge on February 15, 2025.

On March 19, 2024, the respondent No. 3 terminated his services without issuing a show cause notice.

The stated reason for termination, orally communicated, was the discovery of a criminal case against the applicant during police verification.

The applicant claimed he was unaware of this case at the time of engagement.

The criminal case, FIR dated April 23, 2017 (Case No. 283 of 2017 under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC), was lodged when the applicant was 17 years old and a minor.

The applicant obtained bail on April 3, 2024.

The respondents contended that the applicant knowing and wilfully concealed the facts of the pending police case at the time of engagement and had provided an undertaking that false information would lead to termination.

1. Whether the termination order issued by the respondents was just and fair, particularly given that no show cause notice was issued and the alleged crime was trivial and occurred when the applicant was a minor?

2. Whether the applicant's alleged concealment of the criminal case, where he claimed lack of knowledge and the incident occurred during his minority, warrants termination under the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others?

The court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471, concerning suppression or false information regarding criminal cases during employment.

This judgment mandates that information provided by a candidate must be true, and suppression or false mention is impermissible.

It further stipulates that employers, when terminating services for false information, may consider special circumstances, including triviality of the offense (e.g., shouting slogans at a young age for a petty offense) or lack of knowledge about a pending case.

It also notes that deliberate suppression of fact, especially with multiple pending cases, can justify termination, but for trivial matters or cases unknown to the candidate, the appointing authority should consider the seriousness of the crime.

Finally, for determining suppression, the attestation/verification form must be specific, and knowledge of the fact must be attributable to the individual.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant was terminated without a show cause notice, contrary to principles of natural justice.

Crucially, the criminal case against the applicant, involving sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, was lodged when he was 17 years old, making him a minor at the time.

The court deemed this case to be of a "trivial nature" and considered the applicant's age at the time of the incident to be a special circumstance, fitting within the guidelines of Avtar Singh (supra).

Given these facts, and the applicant's claim of no knowledge regarding the case's advancement or his conviction, the termination order, which was non-speaking and lacked reasoning, appeared to be disproportionate without re-examining the circumstances.

The Tribunal underscored that for suppression, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to the individual, and the form must be specific.

The Tribunal did not quash the termination order directly but directed the applicant to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority within 15 days.

The respondents/competent authority were then directed to re-examine the applicant's case within three months, considering the observations made by the Tribunal, particularly the applicant's age at the time of the FIR and the nature of the case, and the principles laid down in Avtar Singh (supra).

The impugned termination order would remain subject to the fresh reasoned decision taken by the respondents' authority.