Find a Lawyer

Case No. 641/1616 of 1981, decided on 14th November, 1982.

‑‑Efficiency bar‑‑Crossing of‑‑Civil servant earning adverse remarks in two years prior to year in which efficiency bar occurring‑Such remarks not expunged despite representation‑Good reports not earned for two consecutive years after the year in which Efficiency Bar falling ‑Crossing of bar, in circumstances, held, rightly with held‑Civil servant earning one good report in next following year and proceeding on L. P. R. without earning another good annual report‑Appeal for being allowed to cross efficiency bar, in circum stances, rejected try Service Tribunal‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Imtiaz Javed for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.

‑Malik Ghulam Yasin has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and has impleaded Province of the Punjab and Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Co‑operative Department as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that this Tribunal should issue directions to the respondents to allow the appellant to cross Efficiency Bar from the date they set aside the impugned order dated 8‑6‑1981 by which his representation was considered and rejected by the competent authority.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was promoted as Deputy Registrar, Co‑operative Societies in Grade‑18 w. e. f. 5‑5‑1976. His pay in N.P.S.‑18, was fixed at Rs. 1,075 in the scale of Rs. 1,000‑‑75‑‑1500. On the introduction of revised National Pay Scales 1977 w. e. f. 1‑5‑1977, hi4 pay in N. P. S.‑18 was fixed at Rs. 1575, in the scale of pay of Rs. 1,350‑75‑1,650/100‑1,750. The appellant was due to cross Efficiency Bar at Rs. 1650, w.e.f. 1‑12‑1978. He made a request through an application for allowing him to cross Efficiency Bar to the competent authority through the Head of Department.. His case was duly recommended by the Head of Department to the competent authority but no action was taken on it. The appellant reminded to the competent authority on 3‑2‑1980 after a lapse of one year of his first application but he proceeded on L. P. R., on 6‑1‑1980, after completing 25 years of service qualifying for pension under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The competent authority referred the matter to the S&GAD for advice. The S&GAD observed that it was essential for the appellant to secure two consecutive satisfactory reports for the years 1979 and 1980 to cross Efficiency Bar as there were adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. for the year ending 31‑12‑1976 and period 17‑5‑77 to 31‑12‑1977, and the same had not yet been expunged. He also further observed that the Chief Secretary to Government of the Punjab, has rejected the request for expunction of such adverse remarks. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that no finality was attached to the adverse remarks for the years 1976 and 1977, which was still under consideration with the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, therefore, the respondents were not justified to deny promotion to the appellant to cross Efficiency Bar on the basis of such remarks. Learned counsel has further submitted that the competent authority should have taken an independent decision in the matter' and was not permitted to be influenced by the advice of the Regulation Wing of S&GAD. According to the learned counsel further injustice has been done in the case of the appellant as the competent authority has not taken into consideration the report of 1979 in his favour and insisted for the report of 1980 also. A griev ance has been made that denial to cross Efficiency Bar w. e. f. 1‑12‑1978 to the appellant has consequently affected his retirement benefits thus causing him substantial financial loss. Such like action would be biased action in all respects. According to the learned counsel when any final action is taken against a person the competent authority is bound to issue show‑cause notice and he cannot be condemned unheard.

5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the title of date of crossing the Efficiency Bar is always first verified by the Audit Office and then further action is taken by the Department. In the present case the reply of the Accountant‑General, Punjab verifying the date was duly received, vide its letter dated 1‑9‑1979. It was further urged that when there were two adverse entries against the appellant so admitted by the appellant himself pertaining to the years 1976 and 1977 and his represen tation was still pealing with the Chief Secretary, Punjab, the competent authority was within the competence to withhold the cross of Efficiency Bar till the decision of the said representation by the Chief Secretary. Accord ing to the learned counsel for the respondents the Co‑operative Department took independent decisions rejecting the representations for the years 1976 and 1977. It was vehemently urged that in view of the rules so laid down the appellant was required to earn two good reports for crossing Efficiency Bar after 1‑12‑1978. It was further stated that the appellant has been retired under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and proceeded on L. P. R. w.e.f. 5‑1‑1980, he could not earn any report for 1980, therefore, the action taken by the competent authority was fully justified.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so raised before us and would refer to the advice of the Regulation Wing of the S&GAD which is reproduced below :‑

"After the date of accrual of his increment beyond the Efficiency Bar (1‑12‑1978), the permission to cross the Efficiency Bar was rightly withheld till he had earned two satisfactory consecutive reports for the years 1979 and 1980 (and not for the years 1978 and 1979)."

We have examined this advice from all angles and find that we have no reason to differ with the same. The date of crossing Efficiency Bar being 1‑12‑1978, the Regulation Wing of S&GAD has correctly opined that the material years would be 1979 and 1980 and not the years of 1978 and 1979. We are also cautious of the fact that the representation of the appellant against expunction of adverse entries pertaining to the years 1976 and 1977, were duly rejected by the competent authority on 22‑1‑1978, therefore, those entries of adverse nature were enough to withhold the crossing of Efficiency Bar from 1978. We are fully in accord with the learned D. A. that the Regulation Wing is responsible for such Policy matters and not the Co‑operative Department which according to the appellant had recommended his case. The representation pertaining to the expunction of remarks of the years 1976 and 1977 had also been rejected by the Chief Secretary vide confidential letter No. SOS‑9‑1/80 dated, 8‑6‑1981, therefore, the stand of the respondents that the appellant due to his earlier adverse entries was positively required to earn two good consecutive reports for the years 1979 and 1980, and as he failed to fulfil the above requirement, the action of the Government would be fully legal.

7. In view of the above we do not find any merits in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However parties shall bear their own costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.