Termination for non-disclosure of trivial criminal case and subsequent acquittal is improper.

The applicant, Sri Raghu B.R., was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier (GDS MC) on May 26, 2014.

He subsequently appeared in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) and was appointed as a Postman effective December 5, 2022.

During his selection as a Postman, he filled out an Attestation Form and concealed information regarding a pending criminal case against him (FIR No. 53/2021 under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC in Hebbur Police Station, pending in 4th Additional Civil and 5th JMFC Court in CC No. 25056/2021).

The respondents called for his explanation for the suppression of facts, which he provided, requesting pardon and reprieve for an unintentional mistake and claiming he could not comprehend the questionnaire.

The respondents rejected his explanation and issued a Notice of Termination under Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service Rule, 1965) on August 15, 2023.

The applicant's counsel argued that the Attestation Form should not be given cognizance as it was not a fresh appointment but a continuation of service, and that the termination was against extant rules and Supreme Court judgments.

It was brought to the Tribunal's notice that the applicant had been acquitted in the criminal case by an order dated December 12, 2025.

The criminal case involved allegations of causing injury with an iron rod, but the doctor did not support the prosecution's case, and the court found the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, granting the benefit of doubt to the applicant and co-accused.

Whether the termination of the applicant's service due to suppression of information in the Attestation Form regarding a pending criminal case was justified, given that he was an existing employee and subsequently acquitted in the criminal case.

Whether the appointment of the applicant as a Postman through LDCE should be treated as a fresh selection requiring fresh verification of antecedents.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding suppression of information in attestation forms.

It cited Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2016 Supreme Court 3598, emphasizing that an employer has discretion to condone omissions, that suppression of "material" information is required for termination, and that the suitability for a post must be considered objectively, with stricter standards for higher posts.

It also referenced Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 (3) All India Service Law Journal 26, which held that mere suppression of material/false information does not axiomatically lead to discharge/termination, and the employer must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including the nature of the post and duties.

Furthermore, the Tribunal considered its own previous judgment in Shri Khanderao Kodag @ Patil v. Union of India, OA No. 170/00100/2023, reiterating that employers have the right to condone lapses if the suppressed information does not adversely affect the applicant's integrity or suitability for the job.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant, having worked as GDS MC since 2014, was appointed as Postman through an LDCE, which applies only to serving employees of the organization.

While acknowledging the applicant did suppress information in his Attestation Form, the Tribunal emphasized that the job of a Postman is a low-level position without high responsibility or sensitivity, and his overall suitability for the role was not contested.

The Tribunal applied the precedents from Avtar Singh and Pawan Kumar, stating that mere suppression alone is not sufficient for termination and that the employer must consider the nature of the post and duties.

Crucially, the criminal case against the applicant was found to be non-grave in nature, with allegations of causing injury with an iron rod, but the medical evidence did not support the prosecution, leading to the applicant's acquittal on December 12, 2025, due to prosecution failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Given these circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the punishment of termination was overly harsh, especially since the applicant was an existing employee who had served since 2014 and was subsequently acquitted.

The OA was allowed, and the order of termination (Annexure A-3) issued by R4 vide Memo No. B2/LDCE PM-MTS/Dlgs dated August 15, 2023, was set aside.

The respondent was directed to reinstate the applicant into service within six weeks, restore his seniority, and grant all consequential benefits except for pay and allowances during the period he was out of service, considering his acquittal during the pendency of the petition.

No costs were awarded.