Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12614
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M.G. Sewlikar, Judicial Member, Shri Krishna, Administrative Member
Amol Suresh Gharat – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.654/2019
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Termination & Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Indian Penal Code: S.323, S.324, S.341, S.504, S.34
CCS (Temporary Service) Rules: R.5
CCS (CCA) Rules
Code of Criminal Procedure: S.240
Headnote
(B) Service Law - Probation - Extension after two years of service renders employee deemed permanent - Termination thereafter requires notice under Rule 5 CCS(TS) Rules or disciplinary proceedings under CCS(CCA) Rules - Stigmatic termination on grounds of suppression necessitates opportunity of hearing. (Paras 22, 26)
(C) Criminal Law - Pendency of case - Case pending only upon court taking cognizance under Section 240 CrPC - Mere FIR registration constitutes allegation, not prosecution. (Para 25)
Facts of the case:
Applicant appointed as Tradesman Mate on probation for one year, joined service, submitted attestation form denying pending cases. Police verification in 2016 revealed registered criminal case (acquitted in 2016), probation extended in 2018, terminated in 2019 without notice citing suppression, after over three years service.
Findings of Court:
Impugned termination order quashed for procedural irregularity and non-application of mind to relevant factors including petty nature of offence at young age, acquittal, and prolonged continuation in service post-knowledge.
Issues: Validity of termination without notice for alleged suppression; effect of delayed action post-verification; application of Supreme Court guidelines on suppression; status post-probation completion.
Ratio Decidendi: Employer must prudently consider nature of post, duties, materiality of suppressed fact, and overall conduct before terminating for suppression, especially for lower posts; undue delay in action post-knowledge vitiates termination; no case pending without court cognizance.
Result: Original Application allowed; termination set aside; reinstatement without back wages within three months; liberty to take appropriate action.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. V.A.Nagrani
For the Respondents: Mr. R.R.Shetty
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. termination for suppressing criminal case details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. probation completion requires notice for termination (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. violation of ccs(ts) rule 5 and avtar singh guidelines (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. willful suppression justifies termination during probation (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. employer must consider post nature and suppression impact (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. criminal case pending only post court cognizance (Para 24 , 25) |
| 7. quash termination without show-cause notice (Para 26 , 27) |
ORDER
Per: Mr. Shri Krishna Member (A)
Aggrieved by the termination of his services for the alleged suppression of facts in his application form regarding pending court cases when he filled up the application form, the applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985, to claim following reliefs:-
“8.a. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the Respondents and after examining the same quash and set aside the order dated 4th September 2019 with all consequential benefits.
b. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondents to extend the benefit as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union India Vs Avtar Singh referred above.
c. Costs of the application be provided for.
d. Any other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case be passed.”
2. The facts in brief as stated by the applicant are that when the Applicant was only 26 years old, the Police had lodged complaint against the applicant and one other in Case Bearing No. CR No.271/2014 alleging the offences under Section 323, 324, 341, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. The said offence was registered out of the quarrel between the friends which resulted in filing of the FIR and charge-sheet both. The case No.1626/Pw/2015 was registered before the Metropolitan Magistrate 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai in which the Applicant and his friend both were acquitted u/s 323, 324, 341, 504 r/w 34 IPC on 24.06.2016.
3. In pursuance of the Advertisement issued by the respondents for filling of the post of Tradesman Mate, the applicant applied for the said selection as he was fulfilling all the eligibility criteria. The applicant was found successful in the selection. Accordingly, vide appointment order dated 28.12.2015, he came to be appointed on Probation on the post of Tradesman Mate. Probation period was of 1 year from the date of joining. He joined his services on 07.01.2016. On joining the services, the applicant was asked to submit the attestation form. Accordingly, the Applicant submitted the attestation form. In para 13(a) to (j) of the Attestation Form with regard to the question of any pending case against the Applicant in any Court of Law, the Applicant has replied in negative.
4 . The Respondents have carried out the police verification in the year 2018 only, wherein the applicant has no role to play. The police authorities submitted the report that the applicant was found involved in the criminal case at Khar Police Station Mumbai vide CR No.217/2014 under Section 323, 324, 341 and 504 r/w 34 IPC and has been acquitted in the said by Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. At this juncture, the respondents issued letter dated 02.02.2018 thereby intimating the applicant for the first time that his probation is extended and will be lifted after the orders from HQWNC, Mumbai. On the basis of the report provided by the police authorities, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 04.09.2019 terminating the services of the Applicant without issuing any show-cause notice, personal hearing to Applicant by invoking the terms at Para 3 and 5 of the appointment order dated 28.12.2015 and as per Rule 5 of CCS (TS) 1965. The said order was passed when the Applicant was on sanctioned leave and, therefore, after resuming his duties, the Applicant was served the impugned termination order dated 04
