Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Niranjan Kumar vs D/O Post on 16 May, 2025
Item No. 58/C-2 1 OA No. 2041/2020
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2041/2020
Reserved on: 16.04.2025
Pronounced on: 16.05.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Niranjan Kumar
S/o Shri Dinesh Roy
R/o House No. 263, 2nd Floor,
Babu Lal Chowk,
Munirka
New Delhi-110067 ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Zishaan Iskandri)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary
Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi
2. The Director Postal Services
O/o the Postmaster General
Kurnool Region,
Kurnool- 518002
3. The Supdt. of Post Offices,
Kurnool Division, Kurnool
Kurnool-518002 ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R. K. Sharma)
Item No. 58/C-2 2 OA No. 2041/2020
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By way of the present O.A. filed u/s 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant, in para 8 of the O.A., has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"1. That the impugned orders Annexure A-1 passed by the respondent no. 3 passed by the respondent no. 3 may kindly be set aside; and
2. That the respondent may be directed to reinstate the applicant immediately with all benefits including backwages; and/or
3. That any other benefit or relief which in the circumstances of the case deemed fit and proper be allowed to the applicant.
4. That the cost of the suit be awarded to the applicant."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant was selected for the post of Postal Assistant in 2018 against the vacancies of 2015-16 in the Kurnool Division, vide recruitment letter dated 09.02.2018. He commenced his duties as a Postal Assistant and successfully completed two years of probation without any blemishes or adverse remarks. He thereby became eligible for inter-circle transfer under Rule 38 of the Postal Manual, Volume IV, Department of Posts. It is pertinent to note that an employee becomes eligible for transfer under Rule 38 only upon successful completion of the probation period, which the applicant had completed eight months prior to his arbitrary and illegal termination. On 01.10.2020, the applicant was Item No. 58/C-2 3 OA No. 2041/2020 terminated by respondent No. 3 arbitrarily and without any justification.
3. The applicant submitted a representation dated 10.10.2020 to respondent No. 3 and subsequently filed an appeal with respondent No. 2 on 29.10.2020. The appellate order, by which the appeal was adjudicated by the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 2), was provided to the applicant on 02.06.2023, pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal. The order revealed that the applicant's appeal against his termination was dismissed on the grounds of alleged concealment of a material fact--specifically, the pendency of a criminal case (FIR No. 37/18 dated 29.01.2018, Town Police Station, Hajipur) at the time of filling the attestation form during his appointment process. The applicant contends that at the time of filling up the attestation form, he was unaware of any pending case against him and, therefore, he did not disclose it. Furthermore, he asserts that the questions in the attestation form were answered truthfully to the best of his knowledge. The applicant further submits that in the said case (FIR No. 57/18, Town PS Hajipur, dated 29.01.2018, under Sections 323/342/379/504/506 IPC), he was duly acquitted by judgment dated 21.10.2020.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RESPONDENTS
4. The respondents filed their counter reply on 24.04.2024, wherein they stated that the applicant was appointed as a Item No. 58/C-2 4 OA No. 2041/2020 Temporary Postal Assistant at Adoni HO, vide SPOs, Kurnool (Respondent No. 3) memo dated 21.02.2018, and joined on 22.02.2018. The attestation forms for verification of character and antecedents of the applicant, obtained at the time of joining, were sent to the District Collector and Magistrate, Begusarai District, Bihar, vide letter dated 07.03.2018 by Respondent No. 3. The District Collector, Begusarai forwarded the said attestation forms to the District Magistrate, Vaishali District, Bihar, on 27.06.2018, vide letter No. 1387, as the applicant's residence falls under the jurisdiction of Vaishali District. The District Magistrate, Vaishali returned the attestation form without specifying whether the character and antecedents of the applicant were verified satisfactorily, vide letter dated 20.10.2018.
5. During the examination of confirmation cases of the Postal Assistant cadre of Kurnool Division on 10.07.2020, while reviewing the applicant's attestation forms, it was noticed that some remarks in Hindi on the first page indicated that FIR No. 57/18 dated 29.01.2018 had been registered against the applicant under Sections 341, 323, 504, 324, 506, 379, and 302/34 of IPC. Respondent No. 3 immediately addressed the District Collector and Magistrate, Vaishali District, Hajipur, Bihar, on 10.07.2020, seeking confirmation of the applicant's character and antecedents and requesting a reply in English. Despite several reminders dated 17.07.2020, 28.07.2020, 04.08.2020, 26.08.2020, 04.09.2020, 10.09.2020, and Item No. 58/C-2 5 OA No. 2041/2020 21.09.2020, the District Collector, Vaishali District responded vide letter dated 21.09.2020, enclosing a letter dated 09.09.2020 from the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali. It was confirmed that the Inspector-cum-SHO, Town PS, Hajipur, had submitted a report verifying the antecedents of Sri Niranjan Kumar, S/o Dinesh Roy. As indicated earlier, the applicant was the primary accused in Town PS Case No. 57/18, dated 29.01.2018, under Sections 341 (wrongful restrain)/323 (voluntarily causing hurt)/504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace)/324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons)/506 (criminal intimidation)/379 (deals with the punishment for theft)/34 (joint criminal liability) of IPC. The applicant was charge-sheeted vide Charge Sheet No. 538/18 dated 30.06.2018 and the investigation was closed.
6. The applicant did not disclose the FIR in his attestation forms submitted on 24.02.2018 and provided false information. Thus, he suppressed material facts while submitting the attestation forms to this Department, violating the terms and conditions of the appointment letter issued vide memo dated 21.02.2018 by SPOs, Kurnool (Respondent No.
3). Consequently, action under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, was initiated, and a memo dated 01.10.2020 was issued to the applicant. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Adoni Sub Division, was directed vide letter dated 01.10.2020 to relieve the applicant Item No. 58/C-2 6 OA No. 2041/2020 after obtaining charge reports and making payment of one month's pay and allowances through eMO on the spot, and to report compliance immediately.
7. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, vide letter dated 05.10.2020, submitted that an eMO dated 01.10.2020 was booked at Adoni HO for Rs. 33,813/- towards one month's pay and allowances (in lieu of the notice period), and the amount was paid on the spot. The applicant was relieved from the post of Temporary Postal Assistant, Adoni HO, on the forenoon of 01.10.2020.
8. The services of the applicant, Temporary Postal Assistant, Adoni HO, were terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions in Para (f) of the provisional appointment letter dated 21.02.2018 issued by SPOs, Kurnool, read with the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
9. It is submitted that the applicant's claim that he completed two years of probation without any blemish and was entitled to inter-circle transfer under Rule 38 of the Postal Manual Volume IV is false and misleading. Clearance of the probation period must be done by a Departmental Confirmation Committee, consisting of the Superintendent of Post Offices as Chairperson and two Group 'B' Gazetted Officers as members, as per Column 12 of the Schedule under the Department of Posts (Postal Assistant and Sorting Item No. 58/C-2 7 OA No. 2041/2020 Assistants- Group 'C' Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2015, and subject to the terms laid down in the appointment memo dated 21.02.2018.
10. Para 3 of the Government of India, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts (Personnel Division) letter No. 37-47/2010-SPB-I dated 16.04.2015 provides as under:
"As per the Recruitment Rules of PA/SA issued by the Department of Posts, the Direct Recruit PAs/SAs are confirmed in service by a Departmental Confirmation Committee (DCC), and pending confirmation, they remain on probation and their services are governed by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965."
11. Further, in Para 3 (C) (vi) of the Department of Posts letter No. F. No. 141-141/2013-SPB-II dated 17.01.2019, the following instructions had been provided:
"Mere transfer of an official shall not be construed as completion of probation for which specific orders are required to be issued."
12. The relevant portion of Para 3(C) (vi) is also reproduced below:
"Officials who have completed the required probation period of service by 30th June but for whom orders regarding completion of probation have not been issued shall also be considered. However, if the probation period is extended before the official is relieved, the official shall not be transferred, even after issue of approval for transfer. Mere transfer of an official shall not be construed as completion of probation for which specific orders are required to be issued."
13. Therefore, the applicant's contention in Para 4.3 that he completed two years of probation without any blemish and Item No. 58/C-2 8 OA No. 2041/2020 was eligible for inter-circle transfer under Rule 38 of the Postal Manual Volume IV is unsustainable. No order confirming completion of probation was issued in this case. Thus, the applicant was still on probation and governed by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, at the time of termination. As per the Department of Posts (Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants, Group C Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2015, issued vide order dated 05.06.2015, Column No. 12 mandates that confirmation requires recommendations of a duly constituted committee.
14. It is respectfully submitted that the applicant's services were terminated in accordance with Para (f) of the terms and conditions of the provisional appointment letter dated 21.02.2018 issued by SPOs, Kurnool, read with the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Hence, the applicant's claims are not maintainable.
15. It is further submitted that the services of the applicant were terminated in pursuance of the terms and conditions at Para (f) of the provisional appointment letter dated 21.02.2018, read with the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. As per Rule 5 (2)
(a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, where a notice is given by the appointing authority terminating the services of a temporary Government servant, or where the service is terminated on expiry of the notice period or forthwith, the Central Government or any authority specified Item No. 58/C-2 9 OA No. 2041/2020 by it or a Head of Department may reopen the case. Therefore, no further correspondence with the applicant is necessary under the rules. Since the action was taken by the appointing authority, the applicant may prefer an appeal. The applicant did appeal to the appellate authority, i.e., the Director of Postal Services, via representation dated 29.10.2020. Pending disposal of the appeal, the applicant approached this Tribunal. However, the appeal was disposed of and rejected by Respondent No. 2, vide order dated 15.12.2020.
16. It is further submitted that FIR No. 57/18 was registered on 29.01.2018, and the applicant submitted his attestation forms on 24.02.2018--i.e., 26 days later. Therefore, the applicant's claim of being unaware of the FIR is not convincing. Accordingly, the applicant's contention is far from the truth. The applicant's services were terminated on 01.10.2020, and acquitted later, vide judgment dated 21.10.2020, i.e., after the termination.
CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES
17. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant places reliance on the order/judgment dated 11.07.1985 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6814 of 1983 in the matter of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398]. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents places reliance on the order/judgment dated 26.09.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. Item No. 58/C-2 10 OA No. 2041/2020 6955 of 2022 in the matter of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors..
18. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the submissions made by them.
ANALYSIS
19. It is not disputed that the applicant was given offer of appointment as a Postal Assistant provisionally at Adoni HO, vide SPOs, Kurnool (Respondent No. 3) on 21.02.2018, and he joined there on 22.02.2018. During the course of verification of character and antecedents of the said official, with the District Collector, Vaishali Bihar, the attestation form was returned without verification of Character and Antecedents of the candidate. The respondents stated that it revealed from the remarks that there was an FIR Number 57/18 dated 29.01.2018 registered against the applicant under Sections 341, 323, 504, 324, 506, 379, 302/34 of IPC. As the said remarks which were in Hindi, the same could not be noticed by the SPOs, Kurnool. As the applicant did not mention about the Criminal case registered against him in the Town PS, Hajipur, Bihar, vide case no. 57/18, dated 29.01.2018 in the attestation form dated 24.02.2018, it was held to be suppressed the facts in attestation form which is against the Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct Rules), 1964.
20. Order/judgment dated 11.07.1985 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6814 of 1983 in the matter of Item No. 58/C-2 11 OA No. 2041/2020 Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398] wherein the Court has held the following:-
"when power to dispense with an enquiry is conferred by it upon the authority empowered to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank a government servant in case where such authority empower to dismiss remove or reduce in rank a government servant in case where such authority is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by the authority in writing, it is not reasonable practicable to hold such enquiry".
21. The order/judgment dated 26.09.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6955 of 2022 in the matter of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors. The relevant paras of the same read as under:-
"4. This appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ applicant of a writ application being the Writ Petition (C) No. 1167 of 2018 filed in the High Court of Delhi and is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.04.2019 by which a Division Bench of the High Court rejected the writ application filed by the writ applicant (appellant herein) thereby affirming the dismissal of the appellant herein from service as a Constable (General Duty) with the CRPF.
5. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as under:
5.1 The appellant herein was serving as a Constable (General Duty) with the CRPF. He was recruited as a temporary employee of the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF on 28.07.2014. After undergoing the basic training, he reported at the 179th Battalion on 17.12.2015.
5.2 While filling up the requisite verification Form-25 at the time of his recruitment in the CRPF in Column 12 in response to the question whether any case was pending against him, the appellant answered in the negative.
5.3 Thereafter, under Rule 14 of the CRPF Rules, the Character and Antecedents verification Form of the appellant was sent to the Collector, District Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The Collector, vide his letter dated 25.02.2015, informed the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP), Group Centre, CRPF Rampur that the Criminal Case No. 1015 of 2008 had been registered against the appellant herein at the P.S. Khalilabad Sant Item No. 58/C-2 12 OA No. 2041/2020 Kabir Nagar, Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504 and 506 resply of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC"). Upon receipt of the information as aforesaid, the services of the appellant herein came to be terminated in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 vide the order dated 11.03.2016 on the ground that he had concealed the information as aforesaid while filling up the Form-25.
5.4 The further appeal addressed by the appellant herein to the Inspector General (IG) was also dismissed.
5.5 The appellant herein challenged his dismissal from service by filing the Writ Petition (C) No. 10558 of 2016 in the High Court of Delhi. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court on 25.09.2017 remitting the matter to the Revisionary Authority for fresh consideration within a period of six weeks from the date the appellant herein would make a representation.
5.6 The representation filed by the appellant herein ultimately came to be rejected and a fresh order dated 05.01.2018 reiterating the termination of the appellant's services was passed.
5.7 The appellant herein once again preferred a fresh Writ Petition (C) No. 1167 of 2018 challenging the impugned order dated 05.01.2018 terminating his services.
5.8 The High Court rejected the writ petition vide order dated 15.04.2019 holding as under:
"9. The fact remains that FIR No. 1015/2008 was registered at P.S. Khalilabad against the Petitioner and placed under Sections 147/323/324/504/506 IPC.
Admittedly, the Petitioner got bail in the above Criminal case which was for cognizable offences. It is not therefore the case where the time of filing up of the verification form- 25 the Petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the Criminal case against him.
xxx xxx xxx
11. In the present case, on the date of filling up of the verification form the criminal case against the Petitioner was very much pending. The fact that the charge sheet had been filed after the filling up the form will not make any difference to the fact that the Petitioner deliberately gave a wrong answer to the question whether any case was pending against the Petitioner. This could not be termed as innocent. The Petitioner is applying for the post of Constable in a para military organization and is expected to be truthful in all responses to the columns in the Item No. 58/C-2 13 OA No. 2041/2020 verification form. At the time of filling up of that form the Petitioner was very much aware of the pendency of the criminal case.
Therefore, there could be no excuse for not filling up the correct answer in response to the question under Column 12.
12. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the DA which was confirmed by the AA."
xxx xxx xxx
80. We find that the observations in the aforesaid case are fully applicable to the appeal filed by Satish Chandra Yadav. We are of the opinion that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant Satish Chandra Yadav to withhold the relevant information and it is this omission which has led to the termination of his service during the probation period."
22. The allegation against the applicant is that he did not furnish the particulars of a criminal case pending against him while filling up attestation form. As mentioned above, the applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant vide order dated 21.02.2018 and he joined as Postal Assistant, Adoni, HO on 22.02.2018. The applicant's services were terminated by the respondents on 01.10.2020 on the ground of not mentioning about the criminal case registered in Town PS, Hajipur, Bihar, vide case no. 57/2018 dated 29.01.2018 in the attestation form dated 24.02.2018. It is seen that the attestation was filled up by the applicant on 24.02.2018. It is also correct that FIR No. 57/2018 dated 29.01.2018 was registered against the accused persons including the applicant i.e. Niranjan Kumar. Investigation report reveals that on 16.04.2018, as is evident from page 122 of the paper book, the notice to appear in the investigation was issued to the applicant i.e. Niranjan Kumar Item No. 58/C-2 14 OA No. 2041/2020 and other persons namely Niraj Kumar and Nishant Kumar u/s 41 A of CrPC. Notice was served upon the applicant. On 20.04.2018, the applicant appeared before the police officer and recorded his explanatory statement.
23. In Para 4.6 of the OA, the applicant has stated that he was not aware of the pendency of any case against him. Therefore, at the time of filling up of attestation form, he did not mention the pendency of any criminal case against him. He further states that he had provided correct information while filling up of the attestation form.
24. In the matter of Constable Sandeep Vs. GNCTD in O.A. No. 2137/2009 decided on 31.01.2011 by the Tribunal and also in the present matter, there was a scuffle between the applicant and some persons living in his neighborhood. In the case in hand, an FIR No. 57/18 dated 29.01.2018 was registered against the applicant under Sections 341, 323, 504, 324, 506, 379, 302/34 of IPC at Town PS, Hajipur, Bihar against four persons including the applicant. As per the pleadings in the matter, it does not reveal that the applicant was aware of pending criminal case against him at the time of submitting the Attestation Form, wherein he provided the required particulars for the job of Postal Assistant in Kurnool Division, Andhra Pradesh.
25. In this matter, the charge sheet dated 30.06.2018 was filed by the police authorities before learned Court, Judicial Item No. 58/C-2 15 OA No. 2041/2020 Magistrate, 1st Class VII, District - Vaishali, Case No. Gr. No. 360/2018:: Tr. No. 463/2019 and the same was adjudicated by the learned Court. Learned Court vide its judgment dated 21.10.2020 stated the following while acquitting the applicant in FIR No. 57/2018:-
"14. Thus, there is no evidence in the record to prove the charges against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused persons are not held guilty for the charges as levelled against them. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case this court finds the prosecution has completely failed to prove the charges as levelled against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts.
ORDER The named accused persons 1. Niranjan Kumar 2. Niraj Kumar 3. Nishant Kumar are hereby acquitted from the charges of the offence punishable u/s. 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 & 379/34 of IPC. They are set at liberty form this case and discharged bailor from liabilities of their respective bail- bonds."
26. In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and also keeping in view, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), we are of the considered view that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.
27. In the result, the present Original Application is allowed with the following directions:-
i. The impugned orders dated 01.10.2020 and 15.12.2020 [Annexure-A/1 (Colly)] are quashed and set-aside;
ii. The respondents are directed to re-instate the applicant immediately with all consequential benefits including wages and seniority;
Item No. 58/C-2 16 OA No. 2041/2020 iii. The respondents shall implement the aforesaid directions within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this order; and
28. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No Order to cost.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/