Termination solely based on pending FIR without conviction violates natural justice and is unsustainable.

The applicant, Vikram Singh, was appointed as a Class-IV employee in the Animal Husbandry Department, Jammu, on October 22, 2021.

He joined duties on October 29, 2021, and claims to have performed his duties diligently.

His salary was, however, withheld from the inception on the grounds of pending verification of character and antecedents.

The applicant asserted that this withholding was arbitrary and unjustified, claiming he was never accused in FIR No. 82/2015, which related to another individual, Smt. Anju Jamwal.

He filed OA No. 326/2023 seeking the release of his salary and arrears.

During the pendency of this OA, the respondents issued Government Order No. 572-JK(APD) of 2023 dated December 5, 2023, cancelling his appointment and terminating his services without notice or an opportunity for a hearing.

This termination was based on an adverse verification report indicating his involvement in criminal cases, specifically FIR No. 82/2015 (a bribery matter) and another FIR from 2021 (later compromised).

The matter was placed before the UT Level Screening Committee, which recommended against clearing his case until the final disposal of the criminal trial.

The applicant then filed OA No. 1618/2023 challenging this termination order.

The respondents argued that the appointment was conditional on satisfactory verification, which was not received, and that termination was an automatic consequence of adverse verification, not punitive action.

Whether the withholding of the applicant's salary from the date of joining was legally justifiable?

Whether the termination of the applicant's services, based solely on the pendency of a criminal case, without notice, hearing, or inquiry, was lawful and in accordance with principles of natural justice?

The court primarily applied the principle that registration of an FIR or pendency of criminal proceedings does not equate to proof of guilt, and the presumption of innocence operates in favour of an accused until conviction.

It relied on its earlier judgment in OA No. 61/82/2024, which held that termination based merely on accusation violates the principle of treating an employee as guilty without adjudication.

The Tribunal also invoked constitutional guarantees regarding forced labour (Articles 14, 19, and 23 of the Constitution of India) to support the right to salary for duties discharged.

Additionally, it applied the principles of natural justice, emphasizing the mandatory requirement of a show-cause notice, opportunity for hearing, and a regular inquiry before imposing a stigmatic and punitive termination, even if administrative instructions suggest otherwise.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' action of withholding salary and terminating the applicant's services was unsustainable.

The court noted that the applicant was duly selected, issued an appointment order, and allowed to join duties.

Importantly, the applicant had not been convicted in any criminal case, and the FIR relied upon by the respondents was still pending trial.

The court explicitly stated that the respondents' assumption that involvement in an FIR itself renders an applicant unsuitable for service cannot be legally sustained.

Drawing parallels to its judgment in OA No. 61/82/2024, the Tribunal reiterated that pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify a candidate from public employment, and termination based merely on accusation treats the employee as guilty without adjudication.

The court further emphasized that once duties were performed, withholding salary indefinitely was impermissible and contrary to constitutional guarantees against forced labor.

Moreover, the termination order, despite being styled as a cancellation, was deemed stigmatic and punitive due to its foundation on allegations of criminal involvement.

The court held that such an order could not have been passed without due process, including a show-cause notice, opportunity of hearing, and an inquiry, as administrative instructions cannot override constitutional safeguards or principles of natural justice.

The applicant had disclosed the existence of the case, and there was no finding of suppression or fraud, rendering the basis of the impugned action unsustainable.

It quashed and set aside Government Order No. 572-JK(APD) of 2023 dated December 5, 2023, which cancelled the applicant's appointment.

The respondents were directed to reinstate/continue the applicant in service against the appointed post, noting that his continuation would be subject to the findings in the registered FIR.

Furthermore, the respondents were directed to release the withheld salary along with all consequential service benefits within 12 weeks from the date of the order, and the applicant was entitled to continuity of service for all purposes.

The court clarified that the respondents retained the liberty to take appropriate action only if the applicant is ultimately convicted by a competent court in the pending criminal case.