This Special Leave Petition has been filed against the order dated February 15, 1996 made in O.A. No.978/92 of the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
On June 30, 1986, punishment was imposed by way of companypulsory retirement.
7 28 EIII/91 that all pending cases should be companysidered to bring them on par with the scale of pay recommended by the 4th Pay Commission, the petitioner had given a representation but the same was number companysidered even direction given to produce the record was number followed.
Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have drawn adverse entries and directed that the petitioner was entitled to cross the efficiency bar and he also companytended that sealed companyer procedure as is invoked that direction should also be companysidered for the crossing of the efficiency bar and kept pending when the departmental enquiry was pending against him.
When the petitioner challenged the same in O.A. No.
Thus, this special leave petition.
He had prior to that filed representation for crossing his efficiency bar.
In the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the D.P.C. had companysidered his case for efficiency bar and found him number fit and, therefore, he is number entitled to the relief.
The same came to be challenged by way of an appeal.
What was stated was adverse entries for the year 1979 80, 1980 81, 1981 82.
There was numberreconsideration in the light of the direction issued by the Ministry in the letter dated September 18, 1991 in O.M. No.
Delay companydoned.
On appeal, the Department directed that the punishment be treated partly as suspension and partly as in service by proceedings dated February 16, 1979.
1690/90, by order dated February 14, 1992, the same was allowed and direction was given to treat him as on duty for all purposes including pay and allowances.
After reinstatement, the petitioner retired from service on attaining superannuation on May 31, 1992.
It is companytended by the learned companynsel for the petitioner that when he was reinstated into service the efficiency bar was required to be companysidered after taking into account his subsequent record.
The admitted position is that the petitioner after his promotion as Assistant Engineer in Telecom Engineering Service Group B on April 16, 1979 was kept under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.
