NARINDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVT., HARYANA IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPTT. AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was appointed as Junior Engineer on 24.11.1951 in the Punjab Irrigation Department was allocated to the State of Haryana on 1.11.1966. The respondent-State issued an order dated 4.5.1987 (Aanexure P-3) in terms of the provisions contained in the note below Rule 5.32-A(c) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II read with Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I, Part-I, as applicable to the employee of the State of Haryana to retire the petitioner from service with immediate effect that is from the date of issue of the letter of retirement on payment of three months salary and allowance in lieu of notice. The petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P-3 retiring him from service.

(2.) In the written statement it is stated by the respondents that the impugned action against the petitioner was taken because he had earned an adverse report for the year 1956-57. However it was admitted by the respondents that the petitioner earned seven reports as 'Good' and three reports as 'Average during the past ten years, that is with effect from the years 1976-77 to 1985-86.

(3.) From the perusal of the paper-book, it is evident that the petitioner was promoted as Sub-Divisional Officer on 14.3.1972. He was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar on 22.5.1985. It is well settled that an official/officer is not entitled to cross the efficiency bar as of right. His performance and service record have to be evaluated. If he is found suitable and fit, only then he is allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar. If the performance of the petitioner in the recent past had been poor he would not have been confirmed and allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar. These very vital facts relevant to the decision have not been taken into account in the instant case and obsolete materials which are not so relevant to the decision at the relevant time have been allowed to influence the mind. This Court in Dr. Om Parkash Gupta Vs. The State of Haryana and another, 1988(6) S.L.R. 370 , following the ratio of a case reported as Baldev Raj Chadha Vs. Union of India and others, 1980(3) SLR 1 held that the adverse entry prior to promotion, crossing of Efficiency Bar etc. should not be taken into consideration for forming opinion to retire an employee prematurely. His record is to be screened objectively.The retirement on the basis of an adverse entry prior to the date of promotion/crossing of Efficiency Bar is illegal.