Termination for alleged candidature discrepancies requires applicant-specific evidence and observance of natural justice.

The applicants were selected through the Staff Selection Commission’s MTS & Havaldar Examination, 2021 for appointment as Multi-Tasking Staff and were allocated to the concerned Defence Accounts departments.

After document verification, offers of appointment were issued; several applicants joined service, had their pay fixed, or were otherwise appointed pursuant to the selection process.

During subsequent verification of the physical dossiers and photographs with the electronic records received from the SSC, the respondents allegedly noticed discrepancies and exchanged communications with the SSC between August and October 2023.

By separate but substantially identical orders dated 6 November 2023, the respondents terminated or withdrew the applicants’ appointments on the ground that the genuineness of their candidature could not be satisfactorily established.

The applicants challenged the orders, contending that no applicant-specific finding of impersonation, malpractice, fraud or misconduct had been recorded, that the alleged discrepancies had not been established by expert or other cogent evidence, and that no opportunity of hearing had been granted.

During the proceedings, the respondents withdrew the termination orders in OA No. 1099/2023 by a speaking order dated 29 May 2026 after recording that no discrepancies had been found in those applicants’ dossiers.

Whether the respondents could terminate or withdraw the applicants’ appointments on the basis of alleged discrepancies in photographs or dossiers without recording a specific, applicant-wise finding connecting the discrepancy with impersonation, malpractice, fraud or ineligibility.

Whether termination of appointments already made, including appointments pursuant to which some applicants had joined and discharged duties, without confronting them with the adverse material or providing an opportunity to explain, violated the principles of fairness and natural justice.

Whether the subsequent withdrawal of the termination orders in OA No. 1099/2023 required the respondents to reconsider the cases of the applicants in the remaining connected Original Applications on the basis of parity and their individual dossier material.

Whether disclosed criminal antecedents could independently justify adverse action, and whether such disclosure could be treated as suppression of material facts.

The Tribunal applied the principles of administrative fairness, natural justice and reasoned decision-making, holding that a decision having serious civil or stigmatic consequences must be based on relevant, applicant-specific material and ordinarily preceded by an opportunity to respond.

It recognised that a user department is competent to verify the candidature, documents and identity of candidates selected by the SSC, particularly where the SSC itself advised such verification; however, that power must be exercised lawfully and cannot rest merely on a general or unexplained discrepancy.

The Tribunal further applied the rule that the legal effect of an order is determined by its substance rather than its nomenclature; an order which effectively attributes lack of bona fides or improper means and terminates an appointment may attract procedural safeguards even if described as a non-punitive verification action.

The Tribunal also directed that disclosed criminal cases be considered separately under the applicable Government instructions, while holding that disclosure of a pending case cannot, by itself, amount to suppression.

The Tribunal accepted that the respondents had authority to undertake post-selection verification, but held that such authority did not permit termination merely because the SSC had failed to furnish an unequivocal confirmation or because a discrepancy was generally noticed in the recruitment batch.

The impugned orders did not identify the precise discrepancy concerning each applicant, establish a nexus between that discrepancy and the applicant’s candidature, or record a definite finding of impersonation, malpractice or adoption of illicit means.

This deficiency was particularly material because the applicants had undergone multiple stages of examination at which photographs, signatures, thumb impressions and specimen handwriting were obtained, and some had already joined service and had their pay fixed.

Since the respondents neither confronted the applicants with the allegedly adverse material nor afforded them an opportunity to establish their identity or explain the discrepancy, the procedure lacked the fairness required for an action carrying civil and stigmatic consequences.

The Tribunal treated the respondents’ subsequent order dated 29 May 2026—recording that no discrepancies existed in the dossiers of the applicants in OA No. 1099/2023—as a material development.

Although that order did not automatically invalidate the termination orders in the other cases, it required the respondents to examine whether those applicants were similarly situated and, if so, extend equivalent treatment.

Criminal antecedents, where disclosed, were left for separate consideration under the applicable instructions and could not independently be treated as suppression.

The remaining Original Applications—OA Nos. 1049/2023, 1037/2023, 462/2024, 1061/2023 and 1031/2023—were disposed of with directions to the respondents to reconsider each applicant’s case in light of the speaking order dated 29 May 2026 and the individual facts and materials relating to the applicant’s dossier.

If found similarly situated, the applicants were to receive the same treatment as the applicants in OA No. 1099/2023.

Any criminal antecedents were to be examined separately, and disclosed cases were not to be treated as suppression merely because they were pending.

The competent authority was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within two months of receiving the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order; interim orders in the remaining matters were to continue until then.

No order as to costs was made.