Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12955
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. R. N. Singh, J, Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, A
Rohtas Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No.557/2025 | O.A. No.2568/2025 | O.A. No.2571/2025 | O.A. No.3752/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Srikant Singh, Mr. Srajan S Kulshreshtha, Mr. Anurag Pandey, Mr. Akash
For the Respondents: Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. Hanu Bhaskar
Termination orders carrying stigma require procedural fairness, including inquiries, before enforcement, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Termination of Services - Legal standards for dismissal - The tribunal concluded that termination orders that carry stigma require proper inquiry to test the truth of allegations against employees. Judicial precedents highlighted the necessity of procedural fairness when allegations of misconduct are involved. (Paras 10-12)
(B) Policy Recovery - Consequently, the respondents were mandated to reinstate applicants based on a newly formulated policy decision regarding those dismissed following negative forensic reports, with directions for expedient compliance. (Paras 7-15)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, initially appointed as Postal Assistants, had their services terminated based on alleged mismatches from a forensic report. They contested this in light of a recommended policy for reinstatement established in April 2025 after judicial scrutiny highlighted issues of procedural injustice.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal's order directed that termination orders be set aside, and the applicants be given benefits per the new policy decision pending appropriate actions against any conduct that is evidently supportable under relevant laws.
Issues: The primary issue was determining the validity of the stigmatic termination orders and the subsequent need for a fair process for reinstatement based on a negative forensic report.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal held that the form and substance of termination orders must align with principles of natural justice, asserting that employees are entitled to explanations and inquiries into allegations against them before termination. Furthermore, it reaffirmed policies supporting reinstatement of those wrongfully dismissed.
Result: O.A.s allowed with instructions for compliance within four weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the cases were heard together due to common issues regarding employment terminations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the applicants challenged their terminations, seeking reinstatement and citing a prior ruling. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. there were disputes about fairness and opportunity for justification for terminations. (Para 9) |
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
It is not in dispute that the issues involved in the captioned O.A. are identical. In this view of the matter, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the captioned O.A.s have been heard together and are being disposed of vide the present common order.
2. For convenience in writing the order(s), the O.A./557/2025 is being treated as lead case and facts are being derived therefrom.
3. In the present O.A., the applicant has challenged the order dated 30.01.2018, vide which his appointment as Postal Assistant was ordered to be terminated with immediate effect.
4. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-
“a) Quash and set aside impugned order: -
1. Memo No. B-21l0/Recruitment/2013-2014 dated 30.01.2018 issued by Office of Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Sangrur Division to the applicant.
b) Direct the respondents to re-instate the applicant back in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
c) Any other relief the Hon'ble tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
5. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents. However, it is not in dispute that the issue involved in the present case is identical to that in various O.A.s including O.A./4228/2024, which was decided by this Tribunal vide a common order/judgment dated 28.07.2025.
6. In view of the aforesaid undisputed fact that issue involved in the captioned O.A.s is identical to that in O.A./4228/2024, which was disposed of with a batch of O.A.s vide a common order/judgment dated 28.07.2025, we do not feel necessary to consider the pleadings in detail. However, the common order/judgment dated 28.07.2025 is reproduced as under:-
“Learned counsels for the parties submit that the issue involved in the aforesaid As are common and therefore, the aforesaid As can be heard and adjudicated together.
2. In view of the aforesaid, with consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the captioned As have been heard together and are being disposed of vide the present common order.
3. Learned counsels for the parties submit that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents, the applicants participated in the selection process for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant. On the applicants being declared successful in such selection process, they were appointed to such posts in various circles, including Punjab and Gujarat, etc. under Respondent No. 1.
4. The applicants, after completion of their relevant training, were posted at different places under the respondents. Mr. U. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents in respective As submits that the only exception/distinguishing feature so far in OA No. 1992/2025 is that pursuant to the said selection, the applicant was not appointed and before his appointment, the report from CFSL, regarding mismatch of signature of the applicants)/candidates) came to the notice of the respondents.
5. In the light of such report of the CFSL, the respondents passed the order of termination of services of the applicants, by invoking the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary) Service Rules, 1965. However, in case of the applicants in OA No. 1992/2025, on receipt of such report from CFSL, the selection and/or the offer of appointment issued to the applicants was cancelled. Aggrieved by such orders) passed by the respondents regarding termination of services of the applicants and/or cancellation of selection for appointment have been challenged in the captioned OA.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has argued that the issue involved in the present case i
