Termination for criminal-case concealment cannot stand where the applicant’s name was deleted during investigation.

The applicant applied for engagement as a Gramin Dak Sevak (Branch Postmaster) and, after verification and training, joined the post at Galla Mandi on 4 July 2023.

An FIR, Case Crime No. 241/2021 under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, had previously been registered in connection with a matrimonial dispute involving the applicant and his family.

According to the applicant, his name was deleted during investigation on 6 October 2021, and the charge-sheet was filed only against other accused persons.

The applicant was issued a provisional engagement letter on 27 June 2023 and worked until 30 October 2023, when the Superintendent of Post Offices terminated his engagement on the ground that he had suppressed the pendency of a criminal case in the attestation form.

The respondents’ own police verification report dated 19 April 2023 recorded that the applicant’s name had been deleted during investigation and that no other criminal case was registered against him.

Whether the applicant had suppressed a pending criminal case or made a false declaration warranting termination of his GDS engagement?

Whether the termination order dated 30 October 2023 was sustainable when the respondents’ own police verification report stated that the applicant’s name had been deleted during investigation and that no other criminal case was registered against him?

Whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits, including treatment of the intervening period and payment of salary?

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which confers jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to adjudicate service-related grievances.

The respondents’ action was examined in the context of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, and the requirement that termination for alleged suppression or false declaration must be founded on reliable and established material.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative decision cannot be sustained when its factual foundation is contradicted by the authority’s own official record.

It also proceeded on the basis that the applicant could not be treated as having concealed a pending criminal case where the police verification report showed that his name had already been deleted during investigation and that no other case was registered against him.

The Tribunal found that the termination order was based on the alleged pendency of Case Crime No. 241/2021 and the asserted suppression of that fact.

However, the police verification report dated 19 April 2023, relied upon and filed by the respondents themselves, expressly stated that although the case had initially been registered, the applicant’s name had been deleted during investigation and no other criminal case was registered against him.

This directly contradicted the respondents’ pleading that the case was pending against the applicant.

Since the respondents could not clarify the contradiction when the matter was listed for clarification, the Tribunal treated the police verification report as final.

On that basis, it held that the material did not conclusively establish either the pendency of a criminal case at the relevant time or any suppression by the applicant; consequently, the factual foundation of the termination order was unsustainable.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant and to re-examine the termination issue in light of the final police verification report recording deletion of the applicant’s name during investigation.

The respondents were directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The period between termination and reinstatement was to be dealt with under the applicable rules, while salary was directed to be paid for the period during which the applicant had actually performed duties.

The Original Application was accordingly allowed, and the connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of.