ups_00325 — Suppression of seven criminal cases in attestation form by compassionate appointee upheld as valid ground for termination. Claim of ignorance of pending cases rejected where Applicant had studied up to 12th standard with good marks in English. OA dismissed; termination from probationary service confirmed

UPS

Suppression of seven criminal cases in attestation form by compassionate appointee upheld as valid ground for termination. Claim of ignorance of pending cases rejected where Applicant had studied up to 12th standard with good marks in English. OA dismissed; termination from probationary service confirmed — The given chunk is part of an Order Affirming (OA) No. 180/00531 of 2023, which dismisses a claim by an applicant challenging their termination from probationary service as a Postman. The termination... — Facts: The Applicant was appointed as Postman in Calicut Head Post Office on compassionate grounds following the death in harness of his father, who was working as Postman in Kowdiar Post Office, Thiruvananthapuram Division, on 27-5-2011. The appointment was made vide order, dated 24-12-2020 in relaxation of the normal Recruitment Rules, and he was placed on probation for two years. Clause
(f) of the appointment order expressly provided that the appointment was provisional and subject to satisfactory police verification, and that if the candidate was found unfit on police verification, his services shall be terminated forthwith without assigning any further reasons. The appointment order also provided that the service was liable to be terminated at any time by a month’s notice. On 10-12-2020, the Applicant submitted his Attestation Form (Annexure-A4). Column 15 of the form specifically asked whether he had ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention, fined by a court of law, convicted by a court of law, or whether any case was pending against him at the time of filing the form. The Applicant answered ‘No’ to all queries in Column 15. The attestation form contained a clear warning that furnishing false information or suppression of factual information would be liable to be terminated. The Applicant had also signed a declaration stating that he was fully aware that providing false or suppressed information could lead to termination of appointment. After the Applicant was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram South Postal Division on 25-2-2022, the third Respondent requested the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram to verify his antecedents. The District Collector forwarded a police verification report (Annexure-A9), dated 7-6-2022 disclosing that the Applicant had been involved in seven criminal cases during the period 2015 to 2020. Based on Annexure-A9, the service of the Applicant was terminated with effect from 20-8-2022 vide order, dated 18-7-2022 (Annexure-A5). The Applicant submitted a representation (Annexure-A6). Since the representation was not considered, he approached this Tribunal with O.A. No. 439 of 2022, which was disposed on 11-7-2022 directing consideration of the representation within three months. Accordingly, the 4th Respondent, by letter dated 6-10-2023 (Annexure-AB/R3) rejecting the plea, after which the Applicant filed the present OA seeking quashing of the termination order and seeking reinstatement with retrospective effect from 17-8-2022 with all service benefits. The Applicant contended that he was not aware of the pending criminal cases when he submitted the attestation form and there was no wilful suppression of facts; and that the termination order was issued without giving him a show-cause notice; and that Annexure-A-10 (police verification report, dated 5-8-2022 to the IGP and Police Commissioner) showing that all seven cases had been disposed of was not considered while passing the Annexure-AB order. He also argued that the cases were petty in nature and that he was only a matriculate, not well versed in English, and could not understand the queries in the attestation form. The Respondents denied receipt of Annexure-A-10 at the time of the passing of the Annexure-AB order and contended that the Applicant had clearly suppressed material facts regarding seven criminal cases. Relying on Union of India and others v. Sukhen Chandra Das [ (2008) 17 SCC 125 ], the Respondents submitted that termination in exercise of powers under Section 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is neither punitive nor stigmatic in nature.

UPS

Suppression of seven criminal cases in attestation form by compassionate appointee upheld as valid ground for termination. Claim of ignorance of pending cases rejected where Applicant had studied up to 12th standard with good marks in English. OA dismissed; termination from probationary service confirmed — The given chunk is part of an Order Affirming (OA) No. 180/00531 of 2023, which dismisses a claim by an applicant challenging their termination from probationary service as a Postman. The termination... — Facts: The Applicant was appointed as Postman in Calicut Head Post Office on compassionate grounds following the death in harness of his father, who was working as Postman in Kowdiar Post Office, Thiruvananthapuram Division, on 27-5-2011. The appointment was made vide order, dated 24-12-2020 in relaxation of the normal Recruitment Rules, and he was placed on probation for two years. Clause
(f) of the appointment order expressly provided that the appointment was provisional and subject to satisfactory police verification, and that if the candidate was found unfit on police verification, his services shall be terminated forthwith without assigning any further reasons. The appointment order also provided that the service was liable to be terminated at any time by a month’s notice. On 10-12-2020, the Applicant submitted his Attestation Form (Annexure-A4). Column 15 of the form specifically asked whether he had ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention, fined by a court of law, convicted by a court of law, or whether any case was pending against him at the time of filing the form. The Applicant answered ‘No’ to all queries in Column 15. The attestation form contained a clear warning that furnishing false information or suppression of factual information would be liable to be terminated. The Applicant had also signed a declaration stating that he was fully aware that providing false or suppressed information could lead to termination of appointment. After the Applicant was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram South Postal Division on 25-2-2022, the third Respondent requested the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram to verify his antecedents. The District Collector forwarded a police verification report (Annexure-A9), dated 7-6-2022 disclosing that the Applicant had been involved in seven criminal cases during the period 2015 to 2020. Based on Annexure-A9, the service of the Applicant was terminated with effect from 20-8-2022 vide order, dated 18-7-2022 (Annexure-A5). The Applicant submitted a representation (Annexure-A6). Since the representation was not considered, he approached this Tribunal with O.A. No. 439 of 2022, which was disposed on 11-7-2022 directing consideration of the representation within three months. Accordingly, the 4th Respondent, by letter dated 6-10-2023 (Annexure-AB/R3) rejecting the plea, after which the Applicant filed the present OA seeking quashing of the termination order and seeking reinstatement with retrospective effect from 17-8-2022 with all service benefits. The Applicant contended that he was not aware of the pending criminal cases when he submitted the attestation form and there was no wilful suppression of facts; and that the termination order was issued without giving him a show-cause notice; and that Annexure-A-10 (police verification report, dated 5-8-2022 to the IGP and Police Commissioner) showing that all seven cases had been disposed of was not considered while passing the Annexure-AB order. He also argued that the cases were petty in nature and that he was only a matriculate, not well versed in English, and could not understand the queries in the attestation form. The Respondents denied receipt of Annexure-A-10 at the time of the passing of the Annexure-AB order and contended that the Applicant had clearly suppressed material facts regarding seven criminal cases. Relying on Union of India and others v. Sukhen Chandra Das [ (2008) 17 SCC 125 ], the Respondents submitted that termination in exercise of powers under Section 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is neither punitive nor stigmatic in nature.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text