Termination based solely on pending criminal cases is unsustainable without individualized suitability assessment.

The applicant applied online for appointment as Gramin Dak Sevak Assistant Branch Postmaster (GDS ABPM), Dangoli Sub-Office, Almora Division, and was shortlisted.

After verification of his documents, completion of training and other formalities, he was provisionally engaged on 23 December 2024 and joined on 24 December 2024.

A police verification report received in May 2025 disclosed three criminal cases against him under the Excise Act, in which charge-sheets had allegedly been filed.

Relying on the report, the respondents terminated his provisional engagement by memo dated 9 October 2025.

The applicant challenged the termination under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, contending that he had not been convicted, had not suppressed any information, and that the respondents had failed to assess the nature of the offences, the stage of the proceedings, and his suitability for the post.

The respondents contended that the engagement was provisional and subject to satisfactory character verification, and that the competent authority had found him unsuitable on the basis of the adverse police report.

1. Whether the respondents could terminate the applicant’s provisional GDS engagement merely on the basis of a police verification report showing registration of criminal cases and filing of charge-sheets, without any conviction.

2. Whether the respondents were required to consider the nature of the alleged offences, the stage of the criminal proceedings, the nature of the GDS ABPM post, and the applicant’s overall suitability before terminating his engagement.

3. Whether the termination order was vitiated by failure to provide the applicant an opportunity to explain the circumstances disclosed in the police verification report.

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

It applied the principles in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471, under which an employer may consider a candidate’s criminal antecedents, but must apply the relevant service rules or instructions and assess the nature of the offence, the nature of the post, the stage and outcome of the criminal proceedings, and any suppression or false disclosure; mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically establish unsuitability.

The Tribunal also relied on Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 2829, which holds that suppression or false information does not result in automatic termination and that the employer must take an objective decision after considering all relevant facts and circumstances.

The governing principles further recognize that registration of a case or filing of a charge-sheet is not equivalent to conviction, and that termination based on antecedents must involve an informed and objective assessment rather than mechanical reliance on a police report.

The applicant’s police verification report disclosed only the registration of three Excise Act cases and the filing of charge-sheets; it did not show any conviction.

There was also no allegation or material establishing suppression or false disclosure by the applicant.

Although the respondents were entitled to verify his character and antecedents and could consider the pending cases, Avtar Singh required them to examine the seriousness and nature of the alleged offences, the stage of the proceedings, the duties attached to the GDS ABPM post, and the applicant’s overall suitability.

The termination memo did not disclose any such independent or reasoned consideration and appeared to rely principally on the police verification report.

The Tribunal therefore held that the respondents had treated pendency of criminal proceedings as determinative, contrary to the principles in Avtar Singh and Pawan Kumar.

It further indicated that any fresh decision should be taken only after giving the applicant an opportunity of hearing.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant as GDS ABPM, Dangoli Sub-Office; if that post was unavailable, he was to be adjusted at another suitable place and post.

No back wages were awarded for the period during which he remained out of employment.

The respondents were permitted, if so advised, to reconsider the matter afresh, but only after affording the applicant an opportunity of hearing and acting in accordance with law.

No order was made as to costs, and the associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of.