om:18-cl-2011-feb — Suppressing of information asked for in the application form for the direct recruitment to the post of Postman may lead to termination of his posting as Postman

Suppressing of information asked for in the application form for the direct recruitment to the post of Postman may lead to termination of his posting as Postman — Case O.A. No. 47 of 2009 regarding an Applicant appointed as EDBPM in 1999, who was later selected for the post of Postman on unffilled vacancies based on merit. The case is about the applicant being... — Facts: The Applicant was appointed as EDBPM on 27-7-1999. He became surplus and was selected along with three others for the post of Postman on unfilled vacancies on the basis of merit. He filled the application form on 12-5-2007 but did not mention in his application at the relevant column that a police case is pending against him. Nonmentioning of that fact is likely to render him as unfit for the said post. The appointment condition also stipulates that on satisfactory police verification only then Applicant will continue in the post of Postman. The Applicant relieved from the post of EDBPM to take up the post of Postman, Bodakdev on 30-7-2007. The Police verification report showed that the Applicant has been charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with S. 114 of IPC registered as 284 of 2006 and that case is pending in Metropolitan Magistrate-18. When that was brought to his notice, he submitted that it is a private case and in no way connected to his service and that case was filed by his wife due to domestic dispute. He has been acquitted in that case. He also assured that such mistake in not indicating in the application form will not occur in failure. However, the impugned notice, dated 4-2-2008 was issued for termination of his service. That notice is challenged in this case. The Applicant submitted that the case had arisen due to domestic quarrel which cannot be termed as criminal one. He possess his lien as EDBPM and he has to be repatriated to that post. In the rejoinder, it was contended that the post of Postman is a promotional post to GDS. He placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 706 of 1999 and 246 of 2008. The Respondents reiterated that he applied for direct recruitment post of Postman. His posting as Postman is subject to satisfactory police verification. As the police report is not satisfactory, he cannot hold the post. Hence his services were terminated on 7-2-2009. The Respondents placed reliance on the decision in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission v. K. Venkateswarulu and others [ 2005 (8) SLR 1 ] and the decision of Principal Bench in Khazan Singh v. UoI [ (1993) 25 ATC 769 ]. The Tribunal considered the case. The Applicant was informed of his selection as Postman by SSPO / Ahmedabad. The appointment letter was issued by Deputy Chief Postmaster, Ahmedabad, GPO and the notice for his termination was also issued by the same authority. Just because he was informed of his selection as GDSBPM, Ahmedabad, SSPO, Ahmedabad does not become Appointing Authority for the post of Postman. Hence, the plea of wrong authority issued the termination order is rejected. The case in O.A. No. 706 of 1999, Shri A.A. Brahmbhatt v. UoI and another can be differentiated as the Applicant therein did not have satisfactory Police record. But he was acquitted. The Applicant therein did not furnish the attestation form incorrectly. In the present case, the relevant column of cases pending in police diary is not mentioned by the Applicant. In the case of O.A. No. 246 of 2008, A.K. Patel v. UoI, the Applicant therein was terminated for furnishing incorrect information in attestation form which was upheld. He was sent back as GDSBPM. The Applicant in the case of AP. PSC v. K. Venkateswarulu and others [ 2005 (8) SLR ], had left the Column 11 pertaining to previous employment blank and had signed the declaration at the end and also in Ann. III. Hence his candidature was cancelled for suppressing information. That was upheld by Tribunal. But the High Court set aside that order. However, the Apex Court reviewed the order of the Lower Courts and accepted the order of the Tribunal. In that connection, it was held by the Tribunal:-