Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL
Suraj Parkash – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of efficiency bar case. (Para 1 , 2 , 8) |
| 2. application of instructions regarding integrity. (Para 15 , 21) |
| 3. no requirement for personal hearing. (Para 22 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)
CHALLENGE IN THE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL
1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 19.09.1994 passed by the 1st Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the State had been allowed and the suit of the present appellant-plaintiff had been dismissed.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case, the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial Court is illegal. It is submitted that the trial Court had rightly observed that it was the duty of the authorities to annually review the case of the present appellant along with all the other officers who were held up at the efficiency bar. It is submitted that in the present case, the same was not done annually and therefore, the order dated 28.12.1983 to the extent that the plaintiff has been disallowed from crossing the efficiency bar w.e.f. 01.07.1976 cannot be sustained. In support of his arguments, learned
An employee with an adverse integrity report cannot cross the efficiency bar for 10 years under governing instructions, and there is no requirement for a personal hearing in such decisions.
The denial of crossing the efficiency bar based on irrelevant minor punishments was deemed illegal, violating principles of fair assessment of employment.
Suspended from service - Minimum period of permanent barring of increment shall not be less than one year and maximum period shall not be more than three years - Permanent barring of increment shall ....
Disciplinary action necessitates adherence to statutory rules, including providing a disagreement note when diverging from inquiry findings, as failure to do so violates principles of natural justice....
The stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is deemed a major penalty requiring a formal inquiry as per relevant regulations and previous court rulings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in disciplinary proceedings, violation of natural justice, non-compliance with regulations, lack of reasoning in the order imposing puni....
Adverse Remarks – For a person in uniformed service like Police, adverse entry relating to his/her integrity and conduct is to be adjudged by superior authorities who record and approve such entry.
The necessity of providing reasons in administrative decisions is crucial for ensuring accountability and facilitating judicial review.
The court emphasized that a disciplinary order must provide clear reasoning; failing this, the order is unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
