Termination of service based solely on unproved forensic reports without departmental inquiry is legally unsustainable.

The applicant was selected for the post of Postal Assistant through the Combined Higher Secondary Level (CHSL) Examination, 2018, and joined the Banda Division on May 26, 2022

During a subsequent review of dossiers, the respondents alleged discrepancies in the applicant’s photographs, signatures, and handwriting between the Tier-I examination and subsequent stages (Tier-II, Tier-III, and Skill Test)

A report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Bhopal, dated June 15, 2023, opined that the signatures and handwriting on the Tier-I papers did not match the applicant's other documents

Consequently, the respondents terminated the applicant's services on July 18, 2023, by invoking Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, without conducting a formal departmental inquiry

The applicant challenged this termination, seeking reinstatement and parity with prior judicial decisions

1. Whether the summary termination of the applicant’s services under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, based solely on an unproved CFSL report without a departmental inquiry, is legally sustainable?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits in light of established precedents involving identical facts and the same respondent department?

The court primarily considered Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, regarding the termination of temporary government servants

It relied on the legal principle established in Sanjeev Kumar v. Union of India (O.A. 2756/2019) and Sumit Surajmal v. Union of India (O.A. 2444/2021), which posits that termination based on allegations of fraud or mismatch in examination dossiers requires a full departmental inquiry rather than summary dismissal

The court further applied the binding precedents of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 15248/2022 and W.P.(C) 13635/2023, which held that FSL reports must be proved through due process before they can form the basis of termination

The Tribunal observed that the legal issue involved is res-integra, as it has been resolved in several prior cases against the Department of Posts

the respondents failed to dispute that the facts of the present case were identical to those in Sumit Surajmal and Shri Sukhvinder, where terminations were set aside for lack of a formal inquiry

Referring to the Delhi High Court's findings in similar matters, the Tribunal emphasized that a termination order cannot be sustained if it is based on an unproved forensic report without following the principles of natural justice via a departmental enquiry

Since the High Court and the Supreme Court had already dismissed challenges to these principles, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the established view

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant from the date of termination and grant all consequential benefits in accordance with the rules

These directions must be complied with within six weeks of receiving the order

the Tribunal granted the respondents liberty to proceed against the applicant through a formal inquiry in accordance with relevant rules and instructions

No order as to costs was made