Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2911
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shri Justice M.G. Sewlikar, J, Mr. Santosh Mehra, A
Pathan Saddamhusen Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Deptt Of Posts – Respondent
O.A./360/2024
Shri Hamid Patel, Shri Rishi Ashok i/b Shri B.K. Ashok
The suppression of a criminal FIR by a government employee must be evaluated in context, considering the nature of the offence and its relevance to the employee's duties.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Termination of services - Applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak, challenged termination based on alleged suppression of FIR under Section 498(A) IPC - High Court quashed FIR, stating no case was made out against applicant - Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the impact of suppression on duties. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Employment Law - Honesty in Government Service - The court emphasized that suppression of information regarding criminal cases must be evaluated in context, particularly regarding the nature of the offence and its relevance to the applicant's duties. (Paras 12-15)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was terminated for allegedly suppressing an FIR against him, which was later quashed by the High Court. The applicant claimed he was unaware of the FIR at the time of filling the attestation form.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the termination order did not demonstrate consideration of the suppression's impact on the applicant's duties and that the FIR's quashing indicated no adverse effect on his integrity.
Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant was aware of the FIR and the relevance of the suppression to his employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the employer must consider the seriousness of the offence and its relevance to the applicant's duties before terminating employment based on suppression of information.
Result: Original Application is allowed; the termination order is quashed and set aside.
ORAL ORDER
Per: Shri Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 whereby the applicant has sought the relief of quashing of the order of termination dated 30th June, 2023.
2 . The case of the applicant in short is that the applicant was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) on 21st March, 2022. On 30th May, 2023, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Amravati Division (Respondent No.4) issued notice for termination of the services of the applicant. The applicant replied to this notice but his reply did not find favour with respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 terminated the services of the applicant on 30th June, 2023. This order is impugned in this OA.
3 . According to the applicant, a show cause notice was issued to him calling upon him to explain as to why his services should not be terminated as he had suppressed the lodging of FIR against him under Section 498(A) of then Indian Panel Code (IPC). The applicant tendered the reply mentioning therein that he was not aware of the filing of the FIR. He was simply called by the police station once but he was not arrested at any time. Therefore, the applicant was unaware of the lodging of the FIR against him. When he learnt about the FIR, he immediately approached the High Court. The High Court set aside the FIR.
4 . The respondents filed their reply contending that the FIR was registered against the applicant on 03rd July, 2021 and the attestation form was filled by him in the month of February, 2022. Even then he suppressed this fact. The applicant himself has admitted that he was called to the police station once and, therefore, that imputes him with the knowledge of FIR. He has suppressed this information which impacts on the honesty of the applicant and such a person does not deserve to be in Government service.
5 . The applicant has not filed rejoinder.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC does not involve moral turpitude. Moreover, no charge sheet was filed against him. The moment he learnt about the registration of FIR against him, he immediately filed Criminal Application in High Court bearing No.2671/2023. The High Court by its order dated 31st October, 2023 quashed the FIR. He submits that the High Court has categorically observed that no case is made out against the applicant.
8 . Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant suppressed the information of registration of FIR against him. Honesty is a hallmark of any Government service. The applicant filled attestation form in the month of February, 2022 and the FIR was registered on July, 2021. This clearly goes to show that when attestation form was filled in by the applicant, FIR was registered against him. He has admitted that he was once called to the police station by the police. That shows that the applicant was aware of the filing of the FIR against him. This suppression of information is sufficient to dismiss the applicant.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.
10. FIR was registered on 03rd July, 2021 and attestation form was filled on 11th February, 2022. The question is whether the applicant was aware of the filing of the FIR and criminal case against him and if he was aware of filing of the FIR and criminal case, what effect it will have on the service of the applicant. The applicant has admitted that he was called to the police station in July, 2021. However, he was not made aware of the registration of FIR against him. He was never arrested by the police.
11 . Learned counsel for the respondents points out that the charge sheet was filed against the applicant. He has produced the copy of the charge sheet which shows that process was issued against him under Section 498(A), 323,
