Termination based solely on adverse CFSL reports, without inquiry, is legally unsustainable.

The applicant was appointed as a Postal Assistant pursuant to the Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant Direct Recruitment Examination for 2013–14, through an appointment letter dated 10 April 2015, and joined service on 17 April 2015.

During a subsequent review of the recruitment process, the respondents alleged that the applicant’s signatures on the attestation form, charge report, medical certificate and online application did not match those on the OMR sheet and typing/data-entry test sheets.

The matter was considered by departmental committees and the relevant documents were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh.

After considering the CFSL report and the applicant’s explanation, the respondents terminated his services under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, by order dated 4 January 2017.

His departmental appeal was rejected on 31 August 2018.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the Tribunal considered the binding effect of Kanwar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., decided by a coordinate Bench on 28 July 2025, and a Department of Posts circular dated 5 June 2026 concerning cases based solely on adverse forensic reports.

Whether the applicant’s termination under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, based substantially on an adverse CFSL report concerning alleged signature mismatch, was legally sustainable without a regular departmental enquiry and adequate procedural safeguards.

Whether the rejection of the applicant’s appeal dated 31 August 2018 could be sustained when the termination was covered by the coordinate Bench decision in Kanwar Singh and the Department of Posts’ policy circular dated 5 June 2026.

Whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits, subject to the applicable rules and the principle of “No Work No Pay”.

Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, permits termination of temporary service by notice or payment in lieu of notice, but the form of an order cannot conceal a termination that is punitive or stigmatic.

Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice apply where termination is founded on alleged misconduct, rather than mere unsuitability.

Relying on Purshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36, Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences, AIR 2002 SC 23, Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831, and Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2002) 10 SCC 133, the Tribunal applied the principle that the substance and foundation of the termination must be examined and that a stigmatic termination based on misconduct requires an opportunity of hearing and, where necessary, a departmental enquiry.

The Tribunal also followed the coordinate Bench decision in Kanwar Singh, which had relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Union of India v. Sanjeev Kumar, W.P. (C) No. 15248/2022, decided on 18 July 2024, affirmed by dismissal of the Department’s SLP on 16 December 2024.

The Department of Posts’ circular dated 5 June 2026 requires implementation of favourable judicial orders in cases based solely on adverse CFSL reports, while preserving action on independently supported irregularities and applying “No Work No Pay” wherever applicable.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s case was materially identical to the cases decided in Kanwar Singh.

Although the respondents had given the applicant an opportunity to inspect the recruitment documents and submit an explanation, the termination was founded on the alleged signature mismatch and the CFSL report, thereby making the order stigmatic and punitive in substance.

The Tribunal accepted the reasoning that expert forensic material, particularly when not tested through a regular enquiry and cross-examination of its author, could not by itself justify a stigmatic termination of an employee who had already been appointed and had joined service.

The respondents’ counsel fairly conceded that the issue was covered by Kanwar Singh.

In addition, the 5 June 2026 departmental circular required the Circles to implement judicial decisions in cases based solely on adverse forensic reports, including reinstatement and consequential benefits, while allowing independent action where supported by other evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned termination and appellate order could not be sustained, without foreclosing fresh action in accordance with law on grounds independent of the CFSL report.

The applicant was held entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the applicable rules and departmental instructions, subject to the principle of “No Work No Pay”.

The respondents were directed to comply, preferably within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

They were also granted liberty to take appropriate action against the applicant in accordance with law, but only on the basis of evidence independent of the CFSL report, including any separately supported signature mismatch or other irregularity.

No order as to costs was made.