GOPI RAM Vs. REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was employed as Sub Inspector in the Cooperative Society. On 01.04.1979, he was stopped from crossing the efficiency bar in the pay scale of Rs. 480-15-600-EB-20-700-50-760 at the stage of Rs. 600/-. The order primarily was made on the basis of instructions issued by the Government regulating the cases of the employees who were considered for crossing the efficiency bar. In the instructions, it is provided that for an employee to cross the efficiency bar he has to have 50% of good Annual Confidential Reports for the last 10 years. The appellant did not fulfill this requirement as he did not have the requisite number of good reports. Concededly most of the reports earned by the appellant were average and one report was poor. This report was communicated to him. The other reports which were mostly of average grading, however, had not been communication to the appellant. Reference is made to the instructions issued in the year 1983 to provide that the average report is to be communicated to the employee. Though subsequently, the appellant was allowed the crossing the efficiency bar but his chances of promotion were affected. The appellant accordingly challenged the order stopping him from crossing the efficiency bar and also claimed promotion as Senior Auditor Cooperative from the date his juniors were promoted. His suit was dismissed by the trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, the appellant had filed this Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) After admission when the appeal was taken up for hearing on 22.03.1990, the learned Single Judge of this Court was of the view that the facts pleaded in this case would give rise to some substantial question of law. The Judge formulated the following questions of law:

(3.) Learned Single Judge after making reference to case of Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board Chandigarh through its Secretary v. Shri Kishan Gopal Taneja and Ors., 1985 2 SLR 121 observed that this Court has already held that withholding of an efficiency bar was not a punishment under Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 and such order is merely administrative in nature. The Court in this case has also taken a view that the order being administrative in nature, rules of natural justice were not required to be observed before passing of order, withholding an employee at the efficiency bar.