Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Aman Kumar Yadav vs Post Up Circle on 15 July, 2025
(Reserved on 09.07.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
Original Application NO. 330/1216 of 2024
This the 15th day of July, 2025.
Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Aman Kumar Yadav aged about 26 years son of Shri Vijay Bahadur
Yadav, Karimabad Indara Mau Distirct Mau (U.P)
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Sri S.M. Ali
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Postal Department, Dak Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General recruitment section, Circle Office,
Mumbai 400001.
3. Post Master General Staff Section Regional Office, Mumbai 400001.
4. Deputy Director (Administration) Department of Posts GPO
Mumbai 400001.
Respondents
By Advocate: Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash-VII, Member (J) The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 with all consequential benefits (Annexure No. A-1).
(ii) To issue order or direction to the respondents to allow the applicant for posting on selected post Postal Assistant subject to outcome of pending criminal case and to pay salary and other benefits from due date along with 10% interest.
(iii) To pass any such and other order as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of the petition in favour of applicant".
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant appeared in the recruitment examination for the post of Postal Assistant conducted by the Staff Selection Commission and appeared in the examination at Prayagraj MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 2 Centre, as is evident by the admit card annexed with the supplementary affidavit. Upon publication of the final results, the applicant was selected and allotted to Mumbai GPO. He appeared for the pre-appointment formalities; however, his appointment letter was not issued. Subsequently, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 06.06.2024, cancelling the applicant's candidature on the ground that three criminal cases were registered against him. While the applicant was acquitted in two of these cases, in Case No. 17/2021, no acquittal order was submitted by him. Based on this, his selection was cancelled. In Case No. 17/2021, a final report has already been submitted, and the matter pertains to a trivial matrimonial dispute initiated by the wife of the applicant's elder brother.
3. The respondents stated in the counter affidavit that applicant appeared in the Combined Higher Secondary Level (CHSL) Examination, 2019 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission and was selected for the post of Postal Assistant, being allotted to Mumbai GPO. In the attestation form, the applicant disclosed that three criminal cases were pending against him i.e. Case No. 96/2022 (Section 506 IPC), Case No. 203/2021 (Sections 376/504/506 IPC), and Case No. 17/2021 (Sections 498A/323/506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act). A verification request was sent to the concerned police station, and a report was received from the District Magistrate, Mau, on 19.07.2023, confirming the registration of all three cases and stating that the applicant's character verification could not be recommended. Thereafter, the applicant was directed vide letter dated 02.02.2024 to submit proper court orders of acquittal for the said criminal cases. However, while the applicant responded via email dated 15.02.2024 and letter dated 21.02.2024, he failed to submit the acquittal order for Case No. 17/2021. In view of the adverse character verification report and non-submission of required court documents, the respondents cancelled the applicant's candidature, stating that the decision was taken after considering all relevant facts and circumstances.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 3
4. The applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit as filed by the respondents refuting the contentions made by the respondents in their Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and nothing new has been added.
5. We have heard Shri S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant appeared for the post of Postal Assistant conducted by Staff Selection Commission. Referring to the admit card annexed with the supplementary affidavit it was also argued that he has appeared in the examination at Prayagraj Centre and lastly on publication of final result he was selected for post of Postal Assistant and was allotted Mumbai GPO. He appeared for pre-appointment formalities but respondents did not issue appointment letter in respect of the applicant and has passed the impugned order dated 6.6.2024 mentioning therein that there were three criminal cases registered against the applicant, out of them in two he has been acquitted but in case No. 17/2021, no order of acquittal was furnished by the applicant, thus, on the aforesaid ground applicant's candidature was cancelled. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that in criminal case No. 17 of 2021 said to have been pending against the applicant, a final report has been submitted. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the supplementary affidavit and further argued that case said to be pending against the applicant is of trivial nature and matrimonial dispute started by the wife of elder brother of the applicant. Placing reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2016 AIR (Supreme Court) 3598. Learned counsel further argued that Hon'ble Supreme Court elucidated the guiding principle on which basis employer has to take a decision in case any criminal case is pending against the selected candidates, thus, argued that applicant has truthfully disclosed the pendency of the criminal case, MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4 he has not suppressed it and he has been acquitted in two criminal case and in in 3rd one final report has been submitted. It is also argued that applicant can be appointed subject to outcome of the criminal case as has been held in Avtar Singh (supra) case, thus, argued to allow the OA and to set aside the impugned order and to direct the competent authority amongst the respondents to reconsider the appointment of the applicant.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to counter affidavit argued that three criminal cases were pending against the applicant. Although he was able to furnish the record showing the acquittal in two criminal cases but in the criminal case No. 17 of 2021 he did not furnish any order of acquittal. Due to this reason employer concerned keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case has rightly cancelled the candidature/selection of the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the final report annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant and argued that final report has not been finally accepted by the concerned Magistrate, thus, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The OA lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
9. Before discussing the submission raised across the bar, it will be useful to quote the relevant paragraph of Avtar Singh (supra) case:
"28. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by concerned authorities considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.
29. The 'McCarthyism' is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 5
30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
(1) Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
(2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information. The employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
(3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
(4) In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted :
-
(1) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
(2) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
(3) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
(5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6 (7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
(8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
(9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
(10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him".
10. Admittedly in the present matter applicant has not suppressed any fact regarding pendency of the criminal case. He has truthfully disclosed in the declaration form about the pendency of criminal case. Record also reveals that out of three in two cases applicant has been acquitted. This fact has also been admitted by the respondents in the impugned order itself. There remains only one case (criminal case No. 17 of 2021). Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant also reveals that in this criminal case, police has submitted final report. It means he was not found involved in this matter. Although no order accepting the final report passed by the concerned Magistrate has been filed yet nature of the offence alleged in this case are of matrimonial dispute and cannot be said to be a serious offence. Applicant is not the husband of the victim rather he is Devar of victim. In final report submitted by the police it is clearly MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 7 evident that applicant was not found involved in this matter rather victim husband as well as her mother-in-law were found involved. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view of para 30 (6) of Avtar Singh (supra) case, we are of the view that OA is liable to be allowed and impugned order is liable to be set aside.
11. Thus, OA is allowed and impugned order dated 06.06.2024 are hereby set aside. Respondents are hereby directed to reconsider the case of the applicant in regard to issuance of offer of appointment in light of guidelines particularly para 30 (6) of the Avtar Singh (supra) case. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Manish/-
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA