P.K.LOHRA, J. - (1.) Appalled by the impugned verdict of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jodhpur (for short, 'CAT') dated 31st of August 2005, rendered in Original Application No.17 of 2005, the petitioner (applicant) has preferred this writ petition. The learned CAT by the impugned order has turned down the challenge laid by the petitioner against the order of discharge dated 14.12.2004 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Udaipur.
(2.) The facts, apposite for the purpose of this writ petition, are that at Post Office Ghosundi there existed a vacancy of Gram Dak Sevak/Branch Post Master (for short GDS/BPM) in 2003 and name of the petitioner for the said post was sponsored by the employment exchange. Espousal of the name of the petitioner by the local employment exchange was acknowledged by the fourth respondent and in turn the petitioner was asked to fill up the application form vide communication dated 23rd of September 2003 intimating the last date for receipt of form as 23rd of October 2003. In response to the said communication, the petitioner offered his candidature by submitting his application form with requisite documents. On consideration of the application form of the petitioner, fourth respondent addressed an order/communication to the petitioner on 4th of February 2004 asking him to appear before the Udaipur Office with original documents on 10th of February 2004 at 10 AM. Laying emphasis on the recitals contained in order dated 4th of February 2014, the petitioner has pleaded in the Original Application that there was no stipulation in the aforesaid order to disclose pendency of criminal case/FIR for the addressee. Be that as it may the fact remains that in adherence of the order dated 10th of February 2004 the petitioner joined his duties on the post of BPM Ghosundi on 01.03.2004. Subsequent to his joining, the respondent department made endeavor to seek police verification about the character and other antecedents of the petitioner. In the process of police verification, the Station House Officer, Charbhuja divulged information to the respondent department that a First Information Report bearing No.98/2003 for offences punishable under Section 409, 420, 120B I.P.C. is lodged against the petitioner. When this fact was revealed to the respondent department, a communication dated 23rd of August 2004 was addressed to the petitioner soliciting details about the pending case against him.
(3.) It appears that the petitioner has not responded to the said communication and, therefore, yet another letter was sent to him on 23rd of November 2004, whereby he was again asked to submit complete details of the case pending against him within ten days with a clear stipulation that his failure to do so shall entail cancellation of his appointment order. In response to the communication dated 23rd of November 2004, petitioner submitted details about the pending case with his explanation. The explanation tendered by the petitioner was further followed by yet another application dated 13th of December 2004 furnishing information that next date in the criminal case is 14th of March 2005. Along with this application, the petitioner also enclosed copies of the order-sheets of the criminal case and prayed that as charges have not yet been framed he cannot be categorized as accused in the aforementioned case. A prayer was also made for allowing him to continue in services.;