Removal from service

He was removed from service as a punishment after completion of enquiry for the charges framed on him under rule14. Now he is preparing for other government organization other than this will this past history will effect him in future as he was removed but not dismissed

The removal from service per se may not place any bar on future employment even in same establishment.

However the candidate for employment is asked to submit affidavit and is expected to narrate details of past disciplinary action.

The factual details may repel the recruiter or recruiter may still act in line with internal guidelines framed from time to time.

You may go thru detailed and descripttive judgments e.g;

 

Calcutta High Court

Probodh Chandra Jha vs Director Of Public Instruction ...

5. The expression "dismissed, removed or reduced in rank" has a special technical meaning, in the context of the Service Rules and Regulations, it denotes three major punishments. Dismissal and removal denote termination of employment by way of punishment. 

15… Though the petitioner has now a very remote chance of being appointed in Government Service the order does not in terms debar him from future employment.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1760128/

 

Supreme Court of India

Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016

Author: ………………………..J.

Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Arun Mishra, Prafulla C. Pant

 

 

11. This Court in R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police & Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 660 considered a case where the appellant intended to obtain appointment in police force. Application for appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi and also in English. The application was filed for appointment to the post of a Fireman on 5.1.2000. He was involved in the criminal case which occurred on 15.4.2000 under section 294(b) IPC. He was released on bail and was acquitted of the said charge on 25.9.2000. However his services were dispensed with on the ground of suppression of pendency of the criminal case. This Court upheld the order and had held thus :

“10. Indisputably, the appellant intended to obtain appointment in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in such a service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve in other services. Application for appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a vital information. The fact that in the event such a disclosure had been made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability of the appointment is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed.” In R. Radhakrishnan (supra) this Court had taken note of the decision in Sushil Kumar (supra) in which the background facts of the case in which the employee was involved were considered, and the antecedents were not found good.

20. The learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the instructions to the employees in the preamble to the attestation form and the undertaking contained in the verification certificate by the employee at the end of the attestation form, which puts him on notice that any false information could result in termination of his service without enquiry. It is contended that as the attestation form stated that an employee could be terminated without notice, if he furnishes false information, the employee is estopped from objecting to termination without notice. The said contention may merit acceptance in the case of a probationer, but not in the case of a confirmed government servant.

21. No term in the attestation form, nor any consent given by a government servant, can take away the constitutional safeguard provided to a government servant under Article 311 of the Constitution.

25… 16. Thus an employee on probation can be discharged from service or a prospective employee may be refused employment: (i) on the ground of unsatisfactory antecedents and character,

15. When an employee or a prospective employee declares in a verification form, answers to the queries relating to character and antecedents, the verification thereof can therefore lead to any of the following consequences:

22….. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence etc. have to be considered.

30…. (5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175903641/

removal is no bar on future govt service.