Person removed from government job can he apply for another govt job

712 votes

The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Chaitanya Prakash and Anr. Vs. H. Omkaraappa [(2010)2SCC623] observed that the termination order referring to the unsatisfactory services of the probationer cannot be said to be stigmatic and there is no need to follow the principles of natural justice while terminating the services of a probationer. Recently, Delhi High Court in The Managing Committee of Shiksha Bharati Senior Secondary Public School Vs. Director of Education and Anr. (2013) has taken a similar view wherein the respondent who was a primary teacher working on probation with the petitioner /school, was terminated by the school with immediate effect before the expiry of extended period of probation. The issue which came up for adjudication before the court was whether termination order stating that the employee lacked professional capability or was negligent and careless or her conduct was deplorable and had indulged in acts of indiscipline and insubordination would amount to order being stigmatic. The Hon'ble Court held that "law with respect to termination of services of a probationer is now well-settled and has to be by a non-stigmatic order. However, it has been held that stating that the performance is not satisfactory or giving of facts in the termination order will not amount to the termination order being a stigmatic one. Also the principles of natural justice have not to be followed before termination of services of a probationer. If an enquiry is held and the enquiry report forms the foundation of termination of services of a probationer, only then, principles of natural justice are required to be followed, however, where the enquiry against a probationer is only for determining employee's suitability for continuing in service and the enquiry report only forms the motive for removal (as differentiated from a foundation for removal) then, a detailed enquiry in terms of the service rules is not necessary."

Similarly, reference must be made to the judgment in the matter of Shri Syed Mohiuddin Ashraf & Anr. Vs. M/s. Central Electronics Limited (2013) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had taken the same view, with respect to the termination orders of the petitioners who were working with the respondent as probationary engineers. In the present case it was contended by the petitioners that their orders of termination were void as they are violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary, stigmatic and punitive in nature and without any reason as the petitioners had rendered satisfactory services. In the present case, the Hon'ble Court brushed aside the contentions taken by the petitioners and it was held that the principles of natural justice need not be followed while terminating the services of a probationary officer. In so far as the plea of stigmatic order is concerned, the Hon'ble court observed that since the orders of termination only states that petitioners are unfit for continuing their work thus, the expression used in the order cannot be said as stigmatic in nature.

Additionally, in Progressive Education Society v. Rajendra [(2008)3SCC310], the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the correctness of the order passed by the School Tribunal quashing the termination of the service of respondent No. 1 on the ground of unsatisfactory performance during the period of probation and observed that "The law with regard to termination of the services of a probationer is well established and it has been repeatedly held that such a power lies with the appointing authority which is at liberty to terminate the services of a probationer if it finds the performance of the probationer to be unsatisfactory during the period of probation. Unless a stigma is attached to the termination or the probationer is called upon to show cause for any shortcoming which may subsequently be the cause for termination of the probationer's service, the management or the appointing authority is not required to give any explanation or reason for terminating the services"

Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the above observations by the various courts it is abundantly clear that once the facts stated in the termination are only the reasons and the conclusions for holding that the employee is unsuitable for his services, then the order cannot be said to be stigmatic. However, if the order imputes something more than unsuitability for the post in question then the order may be considered to be stigmatic. Moreover, it is not necessary for an employer to follow principles of natural justice even when the termination of the probationer is ordered on the ground of unsatisfactory service.

Thus, you can apply for another job as this termination in no way can create a hindrance in your future career opportunities.

Advocate Siddhant Sharma LawRato

649 votes

Any person who has been ousted from a government job for not completing the probation period will remain a non-fit person for other government job as well unless he specifically mentions the appropriate reason for his such act.

Advocate Pulkit Prakash LawRato

616 votes

Yeh is baaat par nirbhar karta hai ki aaap ke dismissal order mekya likha hai Yadi usme aapke charitra ityadi ke bare me tippani ki gayi hai to aap ke liye doosri naukri paana mushkil hai parantu yadi usme likha hai ke ye dismissal doosri naukri ke liye badha nahi hai to aap doosri naukri kar sakte hain

Advocate Wg Cdr Mohammed Mujeeb (Retd) LawRato

164 votes

When a person is removed from a government job, there are certain rules and considerations they should be aware of if they wish to apply for another government job in India. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Reasons for Termination: The reasons for the termination from the previous government job are important. If the termination was due to disciplinary actions or misconduct, it can affect the individual's eligibility for future government jobs.
2. Cooling-off Period: Some government departments may have a cooling-off period during which a terminated employee may be ineligible to apply for other government jobs. This period varies by department and can range from a few months to several years.
3. Service Rules: Different government departments and organizations have their own service rules and regulations. It's essential to understand the specific rules of the department from which the person was terminated and any rules that apply to the new job they intend to apply for.
4. Disqualification: In certain cases, individuals who have been removed from government service may be disqualified from future government employment, especially if the termination was related to corruption, criminal activity, or moral turpitude.
5. Legal Recourse: If the termination was unjust or unlawful, the individual may explore legal avenues to challenge the termination and seek reinstatement. Winning such a case could impact their eligibility for future government jobs.
6. Transparency: It's crucial to be transparent during the application process for a new government job. Applicants are often required to disclose their previous employment history, including any terminations.
7. Consult Legal Counsel: If in doubt, it's advisable to consult with legal counsel who specializes in labor and employment law. They can provide guidance on the specific circumstances and legal options available.

In summary, while it is possible for a person removed from a government job to apply for another government job, the eligibility and process can vary widely depending on the reasons for termination, departmental rules, and legal considerations. It's important to thoroughly understand the specific circumstances and seek legal advice if needed

Advocate Chikirsha Mohanty LawRato