TERMINATION FOR CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION POST ACQUITTAL AND UPHOLDING EMPLOYMENT PRINCIPLES.

The applicant, Vipin Yadav, was appointed as an Assistant Branch Post Master on October 22, 2022, and joined on February 11, 2023.

His services were terminated by respondent No. 3 via an order dated July 1, 2024.

The termination stemmed from an unsatisfactory character and antecedent verification report received from the District Magistrate, Etah, on April 15, 2024, which indicated a pending FIR No. 65/2016 against the applicant under various IPC sections.

The applicant had previously declared on November 5, 2022, that no FIR was lodged against him.

He submitted representations stating the case was false due to village rivalry.

However, the respondents terminated his services under Rule 8(1) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, due to the pending criminal case.

Subsequently, the applicant was acquitted of the charges by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Etah, on May 14, 2025.

1. Whether the termination of the applicant's services under Rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, without considering the specifics of the criminal case and its subsequent acquittal, was justified.

The court primarily applied Rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, which allows for termination of engagement within the first three years by notice.

It also relied on the principles established by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh, 2016 (8) SCC 471, which dictates that information regarding criminal cases must be truthful, and employers should consider special circumstances, triviality of the offense, and the nature of acquittal when making decisions regarding employment.

The court further referenced the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Ashish Kumar Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and others, Writ A No. 5709 of 2019, dated November 5, 2024, which emphasizes the consideration of criminal case specifics and the absence of deceitful intent.

The court noted that the termination order was a simplicitor order under Rule 8 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, without explicit reference to the adverse character and antecedents.

The applicant was acquitted of the charges on May 14, 2025, during the pendency of the original application, and this acquittal was not considered by the respondents during the termination process.

The court cited Avtar Singh (supra), which states that trivial cases or acquittals (even if on technical grounds) warrant a consideration of all relevant facts regarding antecedents.

It also highlighted that an employer can condone suppression of facts regarding trivial convictions and should consider the seriousness of the crime if concealed.

The court additionally referenced Ashish Kumar Rajbhar (supra), where the High Court considered the trivial nature of a case and the absence of deceitful intent in non-disclosure.

Given the applicant's acquittal and the legal precedents requiring a detailed examination of the criminal case's nature and outcome, the court found it appropriate to remand the matter for re-consideration.

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to re-consider the applicant's case in light of the judgments in Avtar Singh (supra) and Ashish Kumar Rajbhar (supra), passing an appropriate, reasoned, and speaking order within three months from the receipt of the order.