KRIPA SHANKAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Kripa Shankar Shukla was initially appointed as constable in U. P. Civil Police in the year 1960. In course of time, he came to be promoted as Dal Nayak/Commander in Provincial Armed Constabulary. When he was posted in 30th Bn. P.A.C. at Aligarh and his substantive pay was Rs. 2,300 as on 1.1.1991 onwards, he was to cross the efficiency bar in the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-60,2,300. the Commandant, PAC recommended the case of the petitioner on 27.2.1992 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (PAC) Southern Anubhag-U. P. for allowing him to cross the efficiency bar. The DIG (PAC) did not agree with the recommendation of the Commandant as the petitioner had earned two adverse entries in 1986 and subsequently in 1990. Consequently, a notice dated 24.3.1992 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the privilege of crossing of efficiency bar should not be withheld. This notice was received by the petitioner on 26.3.1992. He submitted his reply on 2.4.1992. The DIG rejected the explanation of the petitioner and did not allow the petitioner to cross the efficiency bar by passing order dated 23.4.1992. The matter was again referred by the Commandant, PAC to DIG (PAC) but the petitioner did not meet with any better luck. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner made a representation/ revision before the Director General of Police which has been rejected by the Inspector General of Police (IG) (PAC) Western Zone. Moradabad, U. P. on 29.1.1997. Consequently, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the order dated 29.1.1997. Annexure-1 to the writ petition passed by the respondent No. 2--Inspector General of Police (PAC) Western Zone, Moradabad, Annexure-1 and the subsequent orders dated 20.1.1995, 12.3.1992 and 23.4.1992 passed by the respondent No. 3--Deputy Inspector General. PAC. Southern Anubhag, U. P. Lucknow be quashed and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.1.1992.

(2.) Counter and rejoinder Affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri V. C. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

(3.) Sri Mishra pointed out that the petitioner was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar at the stage of Rs. 2,300 in the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200 on account of uncommunicated adverse entries of 1986 and 1990. It was urged that the two uncommunicated entries could not be made the basis to deprive petitioner of the benefit of the crossing the efficiency bar. The learned standing counsel pointed out that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 14.3.1992 to which he submitted reply on 2.4.1992 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the adverse entries. According to him, the communication of the adverse entries was complete and therefore, the petitioner cannot take any objection of the impugned orders.