IMPORTANT POINT
In deciding whether an employee should be allowed to cross the efficiency bar, the Punjab State Service Rules do not provide for application of principles of natural justice and in this case in fact an opportunity had been given by employer to the employee when the later was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar in prescribed time scale.

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.-This is an appeal by special leave challenging the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had allowed the respondent s Writ Petition challenging the decision of the appellant to the effect that the respondent was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar.

2. The respondent had joined the service under the appellant as Mali-cum-Chowkidar in 1972. According to the appellant, the respondent was not discharging his duties to the best of his ability and honesty. It was alleged that on 9.3.1987 the respondent attempted to misappropriate one bag of wheat from the godown of the appellant but was caught red-handed. The respondent confessed to his guilt and requested that he may be excused. On an earlier occasion he had failed to perform a night duty and had also misbehaved with his senior officer. Vide his letter dated 26.2.1987, the respondent had admitted having committed the said mistakes and again requested that he may be excused.

3. In respect of the year 1986-87, an adverse entry was recorded in the respondent s Confidential Report to the effect that his honesty and integrity was doubtful and that he had not been attending his duties efficiency and had been lazy, undisciplined and was not performing his duties satisfactorily. This adverse report was conveyed to the respondent who submitted his objections on 5.12.1987, but the same were rejected.

4. The respondent was in the pay-scale of Rs. 800-15-1010 EB-20-1150 and his case had to be considered for crossing the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.2.1988. On the consideration of the respondent s entire record of service, including the adverse entries, decision was taken not to allow him to cross the efficiency bar for a period of one year and the matter was to be reviewed thereafter. In the following year i.e., 1987-1988, the respondent was assessed as average and, taking his record into consideration, he was again held up at the efficiency bar stage of Rs. 1010 for another year w.e.f. 1.2.1989 vide order dated 5.4.1989.

5. The aforesaid two orders relating to the stoppage at the efficiency bar and for deleting the adverse ramarks in the Confidential Report for 1986-87 were challenged by the respondent in High Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 1836 of 1990. The same was, however, dismissed by a Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court vide its order dated 11.7.1990.

6. The case of the respondent was again considered for crossing of efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.2.1990. Vide order dated 6.8.1990, it was again decided to stop the respondent at the efficiency bar stage for a further period of one year w.e.f. 1.4.1990. This led to the filing of the second Writ Petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 5848 of 1991 from which the present appeal arises, where apart from the prayer for quashing the aforesaid order dated 6.8.1990, it was again prayed by the respondent that the adverse report for the year 1986-87 should be quashed. The case of the appellant herein before the High Court was that earlier Writ Petition for substantially the same relief had already been dismissed. Further more, the case of the respondent was stated to have been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4.8 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. 1, Part-1 as applicable to the Government employees in Haryana and also as per instructions dated 29.1.1974 issued by the Haryana State Government as amended by instructions dated 24.11.1974.

7. By the impugned judgment dated 6.8.1991, the High Court came to the conclusion that the principles of natural justice had been violated as the petitioner (respondent herein) was not afforded an opportunity of being heard or to represent his case before the orders stopping him at the efficiency bar were issued. It was further observed that the right of an employee to have his case for crossing the efficiency bar being considered every year could not be taken away by any executive order. While allowing the Writ Petition, the appellant herein was directed "to aff