Harshitha Gowda R P vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS on 8 October 2026

O R D E R

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This Original Application under Section 19 of the C.A.T. Act, 1985 has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- “(A) Quash the Supdt of Post offices Mandya, Div Mandya- 571401 Memo no BII/Induvalu Bo/2025/Dlgs dated- 04.02.2025 vide Annexure A2. Issued by Respondent no 4.

(B) Consequently, Direct the Respondents no 4, to re-engage the applicant, with all consequential benefits.

(C) Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice & equality.”

2. These reliefs are claimed on the grounds set out in para 5, which are as follows:- “5(a). The applicant submits that she has not suppressed any material facts, when she submitted documents, for verification at the time of selection engagement for the Post of GDS BPM. There was no adverse material, when she won engaged as GDS HPM from 16.08.2002

TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

5(b). The applicant submits that an FIR registered on 07.01.2023, Subsequent to her engagement. The Cr no 7/2023, is pending at JMFC Mandya for adjudication 5(c). The applicant submits, there was a trivial incident near her home, The neighbour, with jealous, vendetta, involved her, and her name was arraigned as accused no 2 in the FIR

5(d). The applicant was working as GDS BPM efficiently, and sincerely from 16.08 2022, The CR no 7/2023, nothing to do with her official work.

5(e). The applicant remained absent due to compelling reasons on 21.01.2025 due to sudden health issues of her grandmother. Therefore, the absence was not willful and due to compelling reasons.

5(f). Therefore, the applicant submits that termination from engagement at the age of 22, for the alleged offence of registering a FIR on 07.01.2023, after engagement as GDS on 16.08.2022, and for one day unauthorized absence on 21.01.2025, which was not intentional/willful, is disproportionate to the alleged offences. Hence the OA.

5(g). The applicant submit, the alleged unauthorized absence on 21.01.2025, amounts a misconduct, which requires to be investigated and applicant should have been provided an opportunity to submit her explanation. Terminating her from engagement, on the plea of unauthorized absence for a day on 21.01.2025, without hearing is against the principles of natural justice.

5(h). Therefore, the applicant submits that termination from engagement, at the age of 22, based on the incident which was not connected with official duties is arbitrary, illegal, and colorful exercise of power. Hence the OA.”

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the synopsis, are as follows:- TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

“The applicant was provisionally engaged as GDS BPM at Induvalu BO at Mandya Postal Div from 16.08.2022. At the time of selection to the post, there was no adverse remark against the applicant. When the applicant was working as GDS BPM, there was some quarrel among the neighbour, and the applicant was Impleaded as accused no 2 in the FIR dated-07.01.2023, in CC no 424/2023 at JMFC Court Mandya. The applicant obtained Bail, vide order dated- 18.01.2023. The information regarding pending case against the applicant was informed to Supdt of Post Offices Mandya by District Commissioner Mandya Dt vide letter dated- 26.03.2024. The Supdt of Post Offices mandya Div vide letter dated-04.02.2025, issued order of termination of engagement under rule 8 of gramin Dak Sevak (conduct and engagement rules 2020). The applicant submitted an appeal on 13.02.2025, which remain undisposed. The applicant submits that as on the date of selection /engagement, there was no adverse remark against the applicant, as on 16.08.2022. The FIR was registered against the applicant only on 07.01.2023, and the Cr No 7/2023, is pending for trial at JMFC at Mandya. The Supdt of Post Offices Mandya, without waiting the results of Cr No 7/2023, issued a termination order. The termination order is violation of rule 8 of GDS (Conduct and engagement rules) since there was no notice of one-month, nor in lieu of notice one-month TRCA was not remitted to applicant as per rule 8. Therefore, the order of termination is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence the OA.”

4. On notice, the respondents filed their reply statements. Thereafter, the applicant filed her rejoinder. An additional reply was subsequently filed, along with certain documents by way of memo.

5. The case came up for final hearing on 25.09.2026. Shri P. Kamalesan, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri S. Sugumaran, learned counsel for the respondents, were present and heard. TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

6. We have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival contentions.

7. The material facts of the case are not in dispute. The applicant was selected as GDS BPM and provisionally engaged with effect from 16.08.2022. At the time of her engagement, she had submitted the character and attestation forms. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Mandya, issued the order terminating her engagement under Rule 8 of the GDS Conduct and Engagement Rules, 2020, vide Memo No. BII/Induvalu BO/2025/Dlgs dated 04.02.2025. The applicant submits that an FIR was registered against her on 07.01.2023 in CC No. 424/2023 as Accused No. 2 (Annexure A3). She was granted bail by the Hon’ble JMFC, Mandya, vide order dated 18.01.2023 in FIR No. 8/2023, CR No. 7/2023 (Annexure A4).

8. The applicant submitted a representation/appeal against the order of termination to the Director of Postal Services on 13.02.2025 (Annexure A5). The applicant has further stated that her grandmother was seriously ill on 21.01.2025 and that there was nobody at home at the relevant time. Therefore, she left the office in the hope that she could return to the office early. The medical prescriptions issued by the Doctor to Smt. Kamalamma on 21.01.2025 have been produced as Annexure A6. TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

9. The case of the applicant is that, at the time of her engagement as GDS, there was no criminal case against her, since she was engaged on 16.08.2022 whereas the FIR was registered only on 07.01.2023. She further contends that mere pendency of a criminal case is not a disqualification for continuing in Government service and that her one- day unauthorized absence, which according to her was not willful, did not constitute grave misconduct warranting termination of her engagement. Accordingly, the applicant contends that the termination is disproportionate to the allegations against her.

10. The impugned order, filed as Annexure A2, is the order of termination of engagement issued under Rule 8 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks Conduct and Engagement Rules, 2020, vide Memo No. BII/Induvalu BO/2025/Dlgs dated 04.02.2025. It records that the applicant’s engagement was provisional, vide order dated 16.08.2022, subject to verification of her character and antecedents. Accordingly, the attestation forms submitted by her were sent to the District Magistrate, Mandya, on 15.09.2022 to determine her suitability for Government service and to certify whether any adverse information or other fact was available in the records which would render her unsuitable for engagement under the Government. The District Magistrate, vide letter No. MDCJHMOVER/229/2023 dated 26.03.2024, informed that adverse TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

remarks were found in the verification of the applicant’s character and antecedents, based on the enquiry report furnished by the Superintendent of Police, Mandya District, vide letter No. B/VRA/1067/2023 dated 06.03.2024, which stated that an FIR had been registered against the applicant vide letter No. 07/2023 under column 504-232-324-506 and CC No. 423/2023 as per IPC at Mandya Police Station.

11. It is further recorded that the Inspector of Posts, Mandya Division, in his letter No. F/Induvalu BO/Dlgs/2024-25 dated 22.01.2025, reported that the applicant, a provisional candidate for GDS BPM of Induvalu BO, was unauthorizedly absent from duty on 21.01.2025 and did not open the Branch Post Office on that date. It was accordingly reported that she had violated the provisions of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement Rules 2020) during her provisional engagement. In view thereof, and in pursuance of Rule 8 of the GDS Conduct and Engagement Rule 2020, the Competent Authority terminated her engagement by the impugned order and directed that she would be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of her basic allowance plus dearness allowance for the period of notice at the same rate at which she was drawing the same immediately before termination of her engagement or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice fell short of one month. The due amount of basic allowance plus dearness allowance is being remitted in TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

lieu of one month’s notice or for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.

12. The respondents contend that the facts recorded in the termination order have been accepted by the applicant and that the order was passed in accordance with the existing Rules after considering all relevant aspects. Rule 8 has been placed on record as Annexure A7, which reads as follows: “8. Termination of Engagement

(1) The engagement of a Sevak who has not already rendered more than three years' continuous service from the date of his engagement shall be liable to be terminated at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Sevak to the Recruiting Authority or by the Recruiting Authority to the Sevak;

(2) The period of such notice shall be one month: Provided that the service of any such Sevak may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Sevak shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of Basic Time Related Continuity Allowance plus Dearness Allowance as admissible for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. NOTE.- Where the intended effect of such termination has to be immediate, it should be mentioned that one month's Time Related Continuity Allowance plus Dearness Allowance as admissible is being remitted to the Sevak in lieu of notice of one month through money order.”

TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

13. A plain reading of the above provision shows that it applies to a Dak Sevak who has not yet rendered three years of continuous service from the date of engagement. Admittedly, the applicant had not completed three years of service. Therefore, Rule 8 applies to her, and there is no dispute between the parties on this aspect. The Rule further provides that the engagement of such a person is liable to be terminated at any time by notice in writing given either by the Sevak to the Recruiting Authority or by the Recruiting Authority to the Sevak. Thus, the Rule contemplates that during this period the engagement remains terminable by either side upon one month’s notice. The Rule further provides that, notwithstanding the requirement of one month’s notice, the service may be terminated forthwith, in which event the Sevak is entitled to claim the amount of Basic Time Related Continuity Allowance plus Dearness Allowance admissible for the notice period, at the rates at which the Sevak was drawing them immediately before termination, or for the period by which the notice falls short of one month.

14. The respondents contend that the termination notice and the order in the present case are one and the same and that the order expressly provides for payment of the amount equivalent to one month’s Basic Time Related Continuity Allowance plus Dearness Allowance, as TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

admissible. Thus, according to the respondents, the requirement contemplated by Rule 8 has been fully complied with. The applicant has not been able to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Since Rule 8 expressly permits forthwith termination upon payment of the admissible allowances in lieu of one month’s notice, and that requirement has been incorporated in the impugned order, we find no procedural infirmity on this ground.

15. Thus, there is no procedural infirmity in the impugned order. The applicant, however, contends that the termination is grossly disproportionate, particularly because the FIR was allegedly motivated and she has subsequently been exonerated in the criminal case. Along with the rejoinder, she has placed on record the order of the First Class Judicial Magistrate Court, Mandya, in CC No. 424/2023, vide order dated 17.07.2025 as Annexure RJ1.

16. We have perused the said order. Inter alia, it records in para 17 as follows: “17. Considering the above testimony of PW2, it is clear that PW2 has testified in complete contradiction to all the statements in Ex.P4. PW2 completely denied the prosecution's case and, by becoming a hostile witness, did not provide any cooperation to the prosecution.”

TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

17. The above finding clearly shows that the prosecution case was affected by the witness turning hostile. The order further records that the accused were acquitted of the charges under IPC Sections 500, 504, 323, 324, 506 read with 34, and released under Criminal Procedure Code section 248(1). Such an acquittal, based on the hostile testimony of the witness, cannot be treated as an honourable acquittal, as contended by the respondents.

18. The respondents have further pointed out that the issue is not merely the registration of the FIR or the institution of the criminal case; what is relevant is the conduct of the applicant in not reporting the case to the authorities in accordance with the requirement contained in the attestation form. The applicant contends that the FIR was registered only on 07.01.2023, whereas she had applied much earlier and had submitted her attestation form on 01.08.2020, and that she was unaware that she was required to report any subsequent event. The respondents, however, have drawn our attention to the clear warning appearing at the outset of the attestation form, which reads as follows: “The furnishing of false information of suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government.

2. If detained, arrested, prosecuted, bound down, fined, convicted, debarred, acquitted etc., subsequent to the TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

completion and submission of this form the details should be communicated immediately to the authorities to whom the attestation form has been sent earlier, failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information.

3. If the fact that false information has been furnished of that there has been suppression of any factual information in the attestation form comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his service would be liable to be terminated.”

19. It is thus clear from para 2 of the attestation form that if, subsequent to completion and submission of the form, the candidate is detained, arrested, prosecuted, bound down, fined, convicted, debarred, acquitted etc., the details are required to be communicated immediately to the authorities to whom the attestation form had earlier been sent; failure to do so is expressly treated as suppression of factual information. The Department has therefore treated the applicant’s failure to report the criminal case, until it came to its knowledge through the District Magistrate’s Report, as conduct affecting her trustworthiness. The applicant has not furnished a satisfactory explanation for this non- reporting. The respondents have also pointed out that Rule 8 provides for termination of engagement during the relevant period and, according to them, the question of proportionality of penalty does not arise in the same manner as it would in a disciplinary proceeding involving a range of prescribed penalties. TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

20. The respondents have further contended that the applicant was engaged in a one-person Branch Post Office and that, in her absence, a substitute was required to discharge the duties of the Gramin Dak Sevak. Otherwise, members of the general public, mostly villagers who use the services of the Post Office, would be put to considerable inconvenience. It is also an admitted position that, on the date of her unauthorized absence, the applicant did not inform anyone. Her absence came to light only when the Inspector of Posts, Mandya, visited the place and found the Branch Post Office closed. This is evident from the Mahazar dated 21.01.2025, produced as Annexure R9, which reads as follows: “Mahazar dated 21.01.2025 On this day, on 21.01.2025, I, the Inspector posts, Mandya Sub Division, Mandya and Mr. Govindaraju, Mail Overseer, Mandya Sub Division, Mandya, visited the Indavalu BO a/w Guthalu Colony SO and noticed the closed door of the BO and writing the Majesties about this. Today the Induvalu BO Bag was received by ABPM, Kiragandur BO and kept at Kiragandur BO without conveying the BO bag to Indavalu. Received the news about this and we went to Indavalu BO at 1:15 pm today to check whether the Indavalu BO was opened on this day or not. At this time, Bo was not opened and the door was locked. I have written this Majesties in the presence of the villagers and their signatures have been obtained below.”

21. The respondents have emphasized that such unauthorized absence and indisciplined conduct are unacceptable. They submit that, since Rule TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

8 provides for termination during the relevant period, the action taken was proportionate and that no lesser penalty is contemplated under that provision for the conduct in question. They further submit that the termination is justified because the duties of a GDS involve handling both public and private money, including receiving and disbursing money. According to the respondents, a person who suppresses material information concerning the registration of an FIR cannot be entrusted with such sensitive duties, particularly in a one-person Branch Post Office where the work is performed in isolation.

22. The applicant has not been able to establish any legal lacuna or infirmity in the impugned order. We now examine the individual grounds raised in the OA:

(i) In para 5(a), the applicant submits that she had not suppressed any material fact when she submitted the documents for verification at the time of selection/engagement for the post of GDS BPM. There was no adverse material against her when she was engaged as GDS BPM from 16.08.2022. This submission, however, does not address the basis on which the respondents have proceeded against her. The attestation form expressly required subsequent events relating to detention, arrest, prosecution, being bound down, being fined, convicted, debarred, TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

acquitted etc. to be reported immediately to the authorities. Despite the FIR dated 07.01.2023 in CC No. 424/2023 having been registered against her, the applicant did not inform the authorities, and the authorities came to know of it only through the District Magistrate’s Report. As discussed above, this fact is not disputed. The submission, therefore, does not assist the applicant.

(ii) In para 5(b), the applicant submits that the FIR was registered on 07.01.2023, subsequent to her engagement, and that CR No. 07/2023 was pending adjudication. This is a matter of fact; however, the subsequent registration of the FIR does not, by itself, answer the allegation of failure to report it immediately. The District Magistrate’s letter dated 26.03.2024 was received by the respondents only in March 2024. Thus, between 07.01.2023 and 26.03.2024, the applicant did not report the incident to the authorities. The respondents were therefore entitled to take the non-reporting and suppression of the information into consideration as misconduct. This submission, accordingly, does not assist the applicant.

(iii) In para 5(c), the applicant submits that there was a trivial incident near her home and that her neighbour, acting out of jealousy and vendetta, involved her, resulting in her being arraigned as Accused No. 2 in the FIR. The relevant issue, however, is not the nature or seriousness TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

of the incident alleged in the FIR, but whether the applicant reported its registration to her employer as required. The failure to report the registration of the FIR and the subsequent charge-sheet was treated by the respondents as significant conduct bearing upon her trustworthiness. The nature of the underlying incident, therefore, does not by itself answer or mitigate the allegation of non-reporting.

(iv) In para 5(d), the applicant submits that she had been working efficiently and sincerely as GDS BPM from 16.08.2022 and that CR No. 7/2023 had nothing to do with her official work. However, as discussed above, the respondents’ case is not founded merely upon the pendency of the criminal case, but also upon the applicant’s conduct in not informing her employer about the FIR and charge-sheet. The respondents have treated that conduct as serious misconduct.

(v) In para 5(e), the applicant submits that she remained absent on 21.01.2025 for compelling reasons arising from the sudden health issues of her grandmother and that her absence was therefore not willful. The respondents, however, point out that she neither informed any senior or supervising official or colleague nor made any alternate arrangement for discharge of her urgent duties as prescribed under the Rules. She remained absent without prior permission, did not open the Branch Post Office and thereby inconvenienced its customers. The respondents TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

therefore treat the absence as serious misconduct. Although Annexure A6 has been placed on record and appears to be an ordinary prescription, it does not, in their submission, substantiate or justify the applicant’s unauthorized absence from duty. We find that this defence does not, by itself, displace the respondents’ case regarding the unauthorized absence.

(vi) In para 5(f), the applicant submits that termination from engagement at the age of 22, for the alleged offence arising from registration of an FIR on 07.01.2023 after her engagement as GDS on 16.08.2022, coupled with one day’s unauthorized absence on 21.01.2025 which, according to her, was not intentional or willful, is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the misconduct cannot be regarded as minor because the failure to open the Branch Post Office caused inconvenience to a number of persons, while the non-reporting of the FIR raised concerns regarding the applicant’s trustworthiness, particularly because she was required to handle both public and private money. They further emphasize that, under the Rules, termination is the prescribed consequence available within three years of engagement of a GDS. The applicant has not established any procedural or legal infirmity in the impugned termination.

TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

23. The applicant has relied upon the case law of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr in the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 15.02.2012, wherein it has been held that unauthorized absence from duty may constitute a minor misconduct in the circumstances of that case. The respondents, however, contend that absence from duty in a general office, where several employees are available, may have consequences different from those arising in a one-person Branch Post Office, where the absence of the GDS BPM may disproportionately inconvenience members of the public. Therefore, according to the respondents, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

24. We have considered the above submission. The circumstances in the present case are materially different. The respondents have further relied upon the judgment of the CAT Allahabad Bench in OA No. 319/2024 dated 09.04.2026, concerning the character and antecedents of the applicant and concealment of a material fact regarding the pendency of a criminal case, and action taken within three years of engagement of a GDS. In that case, emphasis was placed upon the effect of such conduct upon the credibility of the employee from the perspective of the employer. The respondents have also drawn our attention to the case law referred to therein, including the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

the case Union of India & Ors vs. Shishupal@Shivpal reported in 2024 SCC online SC 1769, which has held as follows: “23. In Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anil Kanwaria14, this Court had opined that even where there was a subsequent acquittal, an employee cannot claim appointment as a matter of right having furnished false information or having indulged in suppression of material facts relating to a pending criminal case.”

25. We find substance in the submissions of the respondents. The citation relied upon by the respondents’ supports their case and operates against the applicant on the issue of suppression of material information relating to the criminal case. Having considered the overall facts of the case, the provisions of Rule 8, and the legal position placed before us, we are not persuaded to accept any of the grounds urged by the applicant. The applicant has failed to establish any procedural or legal infirmity warranting interference with the impugned order.

26. Considering the same, we pass the following orders:

TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA

Order:

OA is dismissed.

Accordingly, all pending MA(s), if any, shall be treated as disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

Sd/- (DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/tl/ TARU LATA CAT Bangalore

TARU LATA