Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Raghu B R vs Deptt Of Posts on 24 February, 2026
1
OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00463/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON: 11.02.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 24.02.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA ..MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA ..MEMBER(A)
1. Sri Raghu B.R,
Aged about 31 years,
S/o Ramanna,
Working as Postman,
Kuvempunagar,
Tumkur-572103, ......Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri P. Kamalesan)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001
2. Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore-560001
3. Post Master General,
S.K. Region,
Bangalore-560001
4. Superintendent of Post Offices
Tumkur Postal Dn,
Tumkur-572102 .....Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri N. Amaresh)
TARU LATA
TARUCAT
Bangalore
2026.02.25
LATA 09:44:02
+05'30'
2
OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra ......Member(A)
1. Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
a. Quash the 0/0 superintendent of Post offices, Tumkur Dn, Tumkur- 572102 Memo No. B2/LDCE PM-MTS) Dlgs dated: 15-8-2023 vide Annexure-A3 issued by respondent No.4.
b. Consequently direct the respondent No.4 not to terminate the applicant from service, after expiry of period of notice. C. Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The applicant was appointed as GDS MC on 26.05.2014. Subsequently, he appeared in the LDCE (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) for the cadre of Postman to which he was appointed w.e.f 05.12.2022. On his selection, he filled up an Attestation Form in which he had concealed information regarding registration of a criminal case against him. For the same, the explanation of the applicant was called by the Respondents for suppression of facts. The applicant submitted his explanation. The Respondents, after due consideration of his explanation rejected the same and the applicant was served a Notice of Termination vide Annexure A-3 under Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service Rule, 1965). In view of the same, he has approached this Tribunal for relief through this OA.
TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 3 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Applicant
(i) The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the applicant was engaged as GDS MC from 26.05.2014. While so, he appeared in the LDC Examination for appointment to the cadre of Postman from GDS Cadre. He was appointed as Postman vide Appointment Letter dated 14.12.2022. After his appointment and based on the fact that he had supressed information in the Attestation Form, the explanation of the applicant was called vide Annexure A-5. The applicant furnished his explanation to the Respondent requesting for pardon and reprieve for committing an unintentional mistake, stating that he was not able to comprehend the Questionnaire, in the Attestation Form and the case registered against him was based on a false complaint. However, the Respondent rejected his explanation. On 15.08.2023, he was served a Notice of Termination of Service issued under Rule 5 (1) of CCS (Temporary Service Rules, 1965) on the grounds that he had supressed information in his Attestation Form regarding registration of a criminal case against him vide FIR No. 53/2021 under Section 323,324,504,506 re/vi 34 of IPC in Hebbur Police Station, which was pending in 4th Addition Civil and 5th JMFC Court in CC No. 25056/2021. In this Notice, it was mentioned that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which this notice is served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him.
(ii) The Counsel for the applicant avers that the Order of Termination on grounds of furnishing false information in the Attestation Form was against the extant Rules and also in violation of several Judgements of the Supreme TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 4 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Court and High Court of Karnataka and CAT Bangalore. He has cited the following grounds for setting aside the Order of Termination issued vide Annexure A-3 by R4:
a) The Counsel for applicant submits that the applicant was serving in the Department since 26.05.2014. He was selected and was continuing in service after proper verification of antecedents since May, 2014. Since his antecedents after thorough verification were found to be good, he continued in the service for eight years from the date of appointment that is 25.05.2014 till termination of his service.
b) The counsel further argues that the selection and appointment of the applicant as a Postman through LDC Examination was not a fresh appointment, but a continuation of his earlier tenure as GDS in the Department and hence, the Attestation Form which was filled up should not be given any cognizance as he was not a fresh appointee. His termination, based on fresh verification was wrong as he was an existing employee.
c) He further avers that Column No. 12 (1) to (g) of the Attestation Form, in the view of the applicant, referred to earlier cases and not pending cases. Therefore, the applicant based on that specific view point, had furnished correct information and not supressed anything which he also explained at length in his representation dated 01.09.2023.
(iii) The Counsel further submits that the FIR registered against the applicant was in no way related to performance of his official duties and hence, the Order of Termination was arbitrary and irrational.
TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 5 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(iv) The Counsel for applicant avers that in several cases decided by the Apex Court, High Court of Karnataka and CAT, it has been held that mere suppression of facts alone cannot be ground for termination of an employee from service. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the following Judgements.
a) Shri Khanderao Kodag @ Patil vs. Union of India, in OA No. 170/00100/2023 of CAT Bangalore Bench dated 30.01.2025.
b) Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors vide SLP No. 20525/2011 dated 21.07.2016.
c) Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India vide Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2022 dated 02.05.2022.
4. Respondents
(i) The Counsel for Respondents has filed his reply. He submits that though the applicant as GDS holds a civil post, he is beyond the purview of the regular Civil Services Rules. Hence, his appointment after LDC Examination has to be treated as direct and fresh selection, and accordingly his antecedents had to be properly verified. Therefore, it cannot be said that since the applicant was already working as GDS, his selection as Postman through LDCE should not be considered as a fresh selection. In this regard, he invites our attention to Annexure R-1 which is the Notification regarding RRs for the post of Postman and Mail Guards dated 24.09.2018. He also invites our attention to the Attestation Form (APP-5) enclosed with the Notification where a clear warning in bold headline is given which is as follows:
TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 6 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "WARNING The furnishing of false information of suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government."
He also invites our attention to Para 5 of the Appointment Letter dated 14.12.2022 which is cited as Annexure A-2 which reads as follows:
5. If the candidate mentioned above is involved in any fraud or vigilance cases be should not be appointed as postman and report sent to this office immediately.
(ii) The Counsel for Respondents submits that during the course of verification of the antecedents of the applicant, a report was received from the office of District Commissioner of Tumkur District vide Annexure R-3. The relevant portion is stated as below:
"After the verification by the local Police Authority it is reported that, a case has been filed against the above mention candidate vide FIR No.53/2021 under section 323,324,504,506 re/vi 34 of IPC in Hebbur Police Station and the case is pending in 4th Addition Civil and 5th JMFC Court in CC No.25056/2021. Hence, as per the verification report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Tumkur District it is not recommended."
(iii) Based on the above (Annexure R-3), the explanation of the applicant was called vide Annexure A-5 for suppression of facts to which the applicant submitted his explanation vide Annexure A-6. The Respondents, after due consideration of his explanation rejected the same and he was issued a Notice of Termination vide Annexure A-3.
TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 7 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(iv) The Counsel for Respondents avers that the Termination Order was issued to the applicant after following due process of law and procedure and in strict conformity with the laid down rules. He further states that the Judgements cited by the applicant were not applicable in this case as the applicant had deliberately and intentionally furnished false information and suppressed factual information regarding the registration of criminal case against him and the pending trial. In this regard, the counsel for respondents invites our attention to the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 8638 of 2011 dated 13.10.2011 between State of West Bengal and Nazrul Islam. The relevant extract reads as follows:
"5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we fail to appreciate how when a criminal case under Sections 148/323/380/427/596, IPC, against the respondent was pending in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah, any mandamus could have been issued by the High Court to the authorities to appoint the respondent as a Constable. Surely, the authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing constables were under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case of the charges under Sections 148/323/380/427/596, IPC, he cannot possibly be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable.
6. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution filed by the respondent in the High Court."
The counsel for respondents concluded by stating that in the light of above averments, the OA should be set aside.
5. Conclusion
(i) We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the counsel for applicant and the respondents. We have also TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 8 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE carefully gone through all the documents and records including the judgement of the Higher Courts which were brought on record by the respective Counsels.
(ii) It is not disputed that the applicant joined the Department of Post as GDS MC on 26.05.2014. It is also not disputed that based on his performance in the LDCE, he was appointed as Postman w.e.f 05.12.2022. The matter to be considered is whether in the light of the CCS (Conduct) Rules and the information furnished by the applicant in the Attestation Form and the series of Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court cited, whether his Order of Termination was correct. In this regard, it will be useful to have a look at the relevant portion of the Appointment Order and the Attestation Form.
"Appointment Order vide Memo No. B2/PM-
MG&MTS/GDS/2022/dlgs dated 14.12.2022 cited as Annexure A-2 The said appointment is subject to following conditions:
1. The selected candidate is governed by CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 & CCS Conduct Rules 1964.
2. The selected candidate will be on probation for a period of two years.
.........
5. If the candidate mentioned above is involved in any fraud or vigilance cases he should not be appointed as postman and report sent to this office immediately."
The Relevant portions of the Attestation Form as filled up by the applicant are as follows:
12(i)( Have you ever been arrested? No/
a) Yes
(b) Have you ever been prosecuted? No/
Yes
TARU LATA
TARUCAT
Bangalore
2026.02.25
LATA 09:44:02
+05'30'
9
OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(c) Have you ever been kept under No/Yes
detention?
(d) Have you ever been bound down? No/Yes
(e) Have you ever been fined by a court of No/Yes
law?
(f) Have you ever been convicted by a No/Yes
court of law for any offence?
(g) Have you ever been debarred from any No/Yes
examinations / restricted by any
University or any other educational
authority/Institution?
(h) Have you ever been debarred / No/Yes
disqualified by any public service
commission/staff selection commission for any of the examinations/selections?
(i) Is any case pending against you in any No/Yes court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form?
(j) Is any case pending against you in the No/Yes University or any other educational authority/institution at the time of filling up this attestation form?
(k) Whether discharged/expelled No/Yes withdrawn from any training Institution under Government or otherwise 12(ii) If the answer to any of the above No/Yes mentioned question is "yes" give full particulars of the case/arrest/detention/fine/conviction/se ntence/ Not applicable punishment etc. and or the nature of the case is pending in the court/University/Educational authority etc. at the time of filling up this form Note: (i) Please also see the warning at the top of this Attestation Form
(ii) Specific answers to the questions should be given by striking out "yes" or "no" as the case may be.
TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 10 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(iii) From the above information furnished by the Applicant in the Attestation Form, it is very clear that he has suppressed information regarding the registration of a criminal case against him and also the pending trial related to that criminal case. However, during the course of arguments it is brought to our notice that the applicant has been acquitted in this case vide order of the Court dated 12.12.2025.
It is true that mere suppression of the fact regarding the criminal offence is not sufficient to deny the employment. As per the established law stated in the aforesaid paras, even the applicant did not disclose the fact about the registration of criminal case or the pending trial, the concerned authority is empowered to examine the matter in the light of the post and the criminal case which was registered against the applicant. The suitability of the applicant to the concerned post should be decided in such type of cases. Whether the applicant was suitable for the post of Postman or not? In this regard, it will be useful to have a look at the relevant portion of the Judgements cited by the counsels. They are as follows:
(I) Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2016 Supreme Court 3598 (decided on 21.07.2016): In this case, the Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court considered the suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form about criminal prosecution / arrest / pendency of criminal cases and the discretion of the employer to condone lapse or to terminate. The relevant portion of the Judgment are held as follows:
"4. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court in T. S. Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre & Ors. (1988) Supp SCC 795 had considered a case where the employee had suppressed the fact that during emergency he had been TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 11 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE convicted in a case registered under the Defence of India Rules for having shouted slogans on one occasion. This Court has laid down that cancelling the offer of appointment due to such non- disclosure was illegal and the employer was directed to appoint him as a Lower Division Clerk. Thus this Court has taken the view that non-disclosure of aforesaid case was not a material suppression on the basis of which employment could have been denied and the person adjudged unsuitable for being appointed as an LDC. This Court has laid down thus:
"2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the special facts and circumstances of this case we feel that the appellant should not have been denied the employment on the sole ground that he had not disclosed that during emergency he had been convicted under the Defence of India Rules for having shouted slogans on one occasion. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and also the order dated August 1, 1983 cancelling the offer of appointment. The respondents shall issue the order of appointment to the appellant within three months appointing him as a Lower Division Clerk, if he is not otherwise disqualified, with effect from the date on which he assumes duty. It is open to the respondents to employ the appellant at any place of their choice. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
..........
22. The employer is given 'discretion' to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression or false information are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer come to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would disclosed would not have affected adversely fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However same standard cannot be applied to each and TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 12 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or dubious character. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment incumbent may be appointed or continued in service."
.........
26. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.
27. Suppression of 'material' information presupposes that what is suppressed that 'matters' not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions if any in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.
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. TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 13 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
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."
(II) In the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India 2022 (3) All India Service Law Journal 26 (2.5.2022), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:
........
"13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material /false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee /recruit is not to be discharged / terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen . At the same time, the effect of suppression of material / false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge / terminate the employee from service."
18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (Supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable and in TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 14 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE sequel thereto the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi does not hold good and deserves to be set aside." (III) In OA No. 170/00100/2023 in the case of Shri Khanderao Kodag @ Patil vs. Union of India, Bangalore Bench of CAT in its order dated 30.01.2025, while citing certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, held as follows:
18. In Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra [Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 17 SCC 696 = 2018 INSC 961 , no doubt, a case where a candidate made the disclosure of criminal case, the Supreme Court made the following observation which resonates with the hard realities of everyday existence : (SCC p. 698, para 5) "5. Employment opportunities are a scarce commodity in our country. Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited number of vacancies. But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of suitability that may apply to other services, may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial service simpliciter. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by self improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will, however depend on the fact situation of a case."
..............
21. Therefore, it appears that in case of any information suppressed by the applicant in that case also the employer having right to condone the aforesaid lapse and to consider the nature of case and the job offered to the applicant . If it is found that the aforesaid case is not adversely affected the integrity of the applicant and the applicant is not unsuitable for the aforesaid job then the employer can condone the aforesaid lapse . In case the employer come to the TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 15 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed would not have affected adversely fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse."
(iv) In the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the following conclusions can be drawn:
a) It is a fact that the applicant worked as GDS MC from 26.05.2014 onwards.
Subsequently, he got selected through the LDCE (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) for appointment as Postman in 2022 in the same organization. It is pertinent to note here that the LDCE is applicable only to serving employees of the organization.
b) It is also not disputed that the applicant had suppressed certain information in the Attestation Form.
c) The applicant was selected for job of a Postman. It is a low level job and it cannot be said that the job has a high level of responsibility or sensitivity attached to it. Furthermore, his suitability for the job of Postman has not been contested at all. In this regard, it would be useful to revisit the relevant paras of the judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India. In this case the Court opined that mere suppression of the fact is not sufficient, the appropriate authority should apply his mind regarding the suitability of the applicant in reference to the post applied. In Para-13, the Court observes as under:
TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 16 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material /false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee /recruit is not to be discharged / terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen . At the same time, the effect of suppression of material / false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge / terminate the employee from service."
Again in Para-18, the Court found that the denial is not proper and the discharge order issued by the Competent Authority is not sustainable. The Court said in Para-18 is as under:
"18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (Supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable and in sequel thereto the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi does not hold good and deserves to be set aside."
(v) It is also pertinent to note that the criminal case which was earlier registered against the applicant was also non grave in nature and it subsequently ended in acquittal. For this purpose, we also examine the facts of the criminal case also:-
TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 17 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE The FIR No.53/2021 was registered against 4 accused persons under Section 506, 504, 323 and 324 read with 34 of IPC at Police Station, Hebbur.
The FIR was lodged by a person named Pathaiah S. and as per para 9 of the aforesaid FIR (Pg no. 78 to 80), the story of the crime has been mentioned as under:-
"10. Details of First Information Report:
On dated: 17/04/2021, Omkareshwara.K, H.C took statement of Pathaiah s/o Sanahuchaiah, 42 years, Caste-Adi Karnataka, Occupation-Farmer, Areyur Majire Bovipalya, Hebbur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk and District, Karnataka who was undergoing treatment as injured in Maruthi Hospital, Tumakuru and presented the statement in the station at 12-30 pm, in that that statement, Complainant, Pathaiah stated that he was living with his wife and his children and Persons by name Raghu s/o Ramanna and Kantharaju s/o Ramanna are from same village and community and they have lorry which is carrying manure and as they are wealthy and arrogance persons, often they used to quarrel with us for trivial matter and then also they used to quarrel that they would build the house in our purchased site which is situated in front of our house. Notwithstanding we were quite and calm, before also I filed a complaint against above stated persons with Hebbur P.S. regarding quarrel and they were called to police station and had given written promise that again they would no quarrel with use, Notwithstanding when I was at home with my wife and children in the evening on 16/04/2021, around 9-00 pm, I heard collide sound from my bike, then I came out and say, my bike had fallen on road, there Raghu and Kantharaju were standing, I did not ask anything about this as they always used to quarrel with us and again I parked my bike, went inside my house, after that around 10.30 am, I heard weapon sound which was hit to gate and then I opened my house door and saw outside there, holding a iron rod, Raghu was standing, As soon as he saw me, he rushed to hit me with iron rod, when I hold my left hand across iron TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 18 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE road, my head got injured severely and bled, then hearing my scream my wife came out of house and tried to rescue me, Kantharaju s/o Rammanna who was standing there hit my right shoulder with stick, afterwards Ramanna s/o Late Doddarangaiah pelted stone at my house, by that time, as Police came to place, all who have beaten me fled away from the place, then Police sent me and Veeranna in 10 Ambulance to District Hospital Tumakuru and my head was severely injured and bled, for more treatment, I was admitted to Maruthi Hospital, Tumakuru and am undergoing treatment and my brother, Veerana also is undergoing treatment in the same hospital on dated 16-04-2021 at 10.30pm, due to previous vengeance, they started quarrel unnecessary, abused, threatened us and I requested to take legal action against Raghu, Kantharaju, Ramanna who made deadly attack with rod, stone, stick with intention of threatening. Based on this written statement, case has been registered in case no.53/2021, Section: 325, 323, 504, 506 as per IPC 34."
It appears from the aforesaid FIR that as per allegation, the applicant - Raghu B.R. caused injury to the complainant by iron rod. The injury caused in the head of the complainant. The copy of the judgment dated 12.12.2025 also filed by the applicant. It appears from the perusal of the aforesaid judgment that the Fourth Additional Civil Judge and First Grade Magistrate decided the aforesaid Criminal Case No.25056/2021. The allegation against the applicant was causing injury with the help of iron rod, but it appears from para 13 of the judgment that the Doctor did not support the case of prosecution. It is stated in para 13:-
"13. Further, according to the prosecution, the witness in this case, Chasa-8, Dr. Lohit B.M. was examined as PW-7. PW-7, in his main examination, testified that he had not given the said injury certificate after seeing the witness' injury certificate and that he did TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 19 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE not know anything about this case and that he had not treated any injured person in connection with this case."
Thereafter, the Court discussed the entire evidence in para 16 and found that the applicant along with other co-accused are entitled to get the benefit of doubt because the prosecution failed to prove the criminal case beyond reasonable doubt. In para 16 the Court mentioned:-
"16. In this case, except for the investigation witness C.W 10, the other witnesses have not given evidence in support of the prosecution case. They have not stated in their evidence the points that are necessary to prove the prosecution's case. The evidence of C.W.-10 is not strong enough to prove the prosecution's case. Moreover, C.W-10 has given evidence about his work ethic. The main witness in the case, the prosecution witness C.W-1, in his cross-examination said that I can read and write Kannada. I do not know who took my statement in the hospital; I do not know who signed my statement. I have read and signed my statement myself. When the police took my statement, my brother was with me in the hospital. When I was in the hospital, I was not able to write. I did not enter in my statement that I could not write. Iron rods, stones, wooden pieces, banyans and punches are usually found in everyone's homes. The police had taken away the fortified items which are from the house when they came to the Inquest. The said items were handed over to the police. I do not know the matter to be filed in the appeal in the case and C.W 2 to Chasa-5 said that there is no conflict between C.W1 and the accused in their cross Examination who are eyewitnesses. Why have you filed a complaint against the accused? I have not seen Accused abused or assaulted with his hands and feet C.W-1. I have not seen the 2nd accused being beaten with a re-piece. I have not seen the accused hitting C.W-1 on the head with an iron rod. I have not seen the accused threatening to kill C.W-1. They have testified that I do not know about this case and that I have not given any statement to the police. C.W-6 and C.W-7 who are inquest witness have testified that he does not know what Chasa-7 is up TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 20 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE to. They have completely and consistently testified that they signed as Police asked them to sign, the police did not seize any items after they signed. Therefore, the charges levelled against the accused remain just charges and are not supported by any evidence. The evidence of Prosecution has completely failed to prove the charges against him and it must be said that the Prosecution has failed to prove the charges against accused under 504, 323, 324 and 504, sub-section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, points 1 to 4 are answered in Negative."
(vi) Therefore, it appears that the trial was pending but the applicant did not disclose the status of the aforesaid criminal case, but after concluding the trial, he has been acquitted. The judgment was passed on 12.12.2025. The respondents did not disclose the fact whether the respondents / Government was willing to file any criminal appeal against the acquittal.
(vii) Section 324 of IPC was also included but the weapon was iron rod which is generally treated as a hard and blunt object. Injury caused by the applicant was not proved because the injury report was not proved by the concerned Doctor before the criminal Court. It is not the case of the respondents that the applicant was having any criminal record. The respondents did not furnish any information regarding the criminal background of the applicant. The post was a lower grade post like Postman. Looking to the personal type of offence, in my view, the punishment is not proper. Harsh punishment has been given. The applicant was already serving in the department since 2014. After departmental examination, he was promoted / posted on the post of Postman. Therefore, looking to the overall circumstances, in view of this Court, the punishment of dismissal was not proper and liable to be set aside. TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 21 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(viii) It is very clear from the above set of facts & circumstances that the case of the applicant falls within the ambit of the judgements cited, by the counsel for the applicant. 'It is also felt that the Order of Termination issued against the applicant was rather harsh, in the light of the facts that the applicant had been working in the department since 2014 and that he was selected for the job of a postman, which is lower level job, with limited responsibility. Looking to the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the termination of the applicant is liable to be set aside. Hence, the OA is allowed. It is hereby ordered that:
1. Annexure A3, which is the order of termination of services of the applicant, issued by R4, vide Memo No. B2/LDCE PM-MTS/Dlgs dated 15.08.2023 is set aside.
2. The respondent is directed to take the applicant back into service within six weeks of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
3. The seniority of the applicant will be restored. After re-instatement, the applicant will be entitled to get all consequential benefits except the pay and allowances for the period in which he was out of service because the acquittal order has been passed during the pendency of this petition.
TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore 2026.02.25 LATA 09:44:02 +05'30' 22 OA No.170/00463/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
4. No Costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
(tl)
TARU LATA
TARUCAT
Bangalore
2026.02.25
LATA 09:44:02
+05'30'