This led to the filing of the second Writ Petition being Civil Writ Petition No.
While allowing the Writ Petition, the appellant herein was directed to afford an opportunity to the respondent to explain the position and represent his case regarding the adverse material on the basis of which he was to be stopped from crossing the efficiency bar.
1.2.1988.
It was further observed that the right of an employee to have his case for crossing the efficiency bar being companysidered every year companyld number be taken away by any executive order.
The respondent had joined the service under the appellant as Mali cum Chowkidar in 1972.
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.
In the following year i.e. 1987 1988, the respondent was assessed as average the, taking his record into companysideration, he was again held up at the efficiency bar stage of Rs.
The respondent companyfessed to his guilt and requested that he may be excused.
This adverse report was companyveyed to the respondent who submitted his objections on 5.12.1987, but the same were rejected.
The case of the appellant herein before the High Court was that earlier Writ Petition for substantially the same relief had already been dismissed.
By the impugned judgment dated 6.8.1991, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the principles of natural justice had been violated as the petitioner respondent herein was number afforded an opportunity of being heard or to represent his case before the orders stopping him at the efficiency bar were issued.
In respect of the year 1986 87, an adverse entry was recorded in the respondents Confidential Report to the effect that his honesty and integrity was doubtful and that he had number been attending his duties efficiently and had been lazy, undisciplined and was number performing his duties satisfactorily.
1.2.1989 vide order dated 5.4.1989.
The case of the respondent was again companysidered for crossing of efficiency bar w.e.f.
The respondent was in the pay scale of Rs.
Vide his letter dated 26.2.1987, the respondent had admitted having companymitted the said mistakes and again requested that he may excused.
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.
1, Part 1 as applicable to the Government employees in Haryana and also as per the instructions dated 29.1.1974 issued by the Haryana State Government as amended by instructions dated 24.11.1974.
According to the appellant, the respondent was number 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.
800 15 1010 EB 20 1150 and his case had to be companysidered for crossing the efficiency bar w.e.f.
On an earlier occasion he had failed to perform a night duty and had also misbehaved with his senior officer.
On the companysideration of the respondents entire record of service, including the adverse entries, decision was taken number to allow him to cross the efficiency bar for a period of one year and the matter was to be reviewed thereafter.
The aforesaid two orders relating to the stoppage at the efficiency bar and for deleting the adverse remarks in the Confidential Report for 1986 87 were challenged by the respondent in High Court by filing a Writ Petition No.
1010 for another year w.e.f.
KIRPAL,J. This is an appeal by special leave challenging the order of the Punjab Haryana High Court which had allowed the respondents Writ Petition challenging the decision of the appellant to the effect that the respondent was number allowed to cross the efficiency bar.
