PREM SINGH CHEEMA Vs. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer in the State of Punjab, claims multiple reliefs through this petition. He is aggrieved by the order dated March 2, 1984 by which he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar in the scale of Rs. 850-30-1000/40-1200/50-1400-60-1700 at the stage of Rs. 1200.00 with effect from July 1, 1981 and not with effect from July 1, 1979 when it had actually fallen due. He also claims promotion to the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer with effect from the date Mr. Baldev Singh was appointed to this post i.e. April 16, 1965. The petitioner also makes a grievance that he was entitled to the same scale of pay as has been given to the Sub Divisional Officers in the Punjab Public Works Department (B&R) and Irrigation Branches. The last grievance made by the petitioner in this petition relates to the actual fixation of his pay. The petitioner has filed and argued this petition in person.

(2.) First grievance made by the petitioner relates to the order dated March 2, 1984 by which he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar only with effect from July 1, 1981 instead of July 1, 1979. His grievance is that he was neither granted any opportunity nor did the authority pass a speaking order while disallowing the crossing of efficiency bar with effect from July 1, 1979. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent it has been pointed out that the petitioner had been communicated adverse reports for the years 1978-79 & 1979-80. It is on account of these adverse reports that the petitioner was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from July 1, 1979. According to the respondent, he was permitted to cross the efficiency bar after he had earned another report. Nr. Cheema urges that his representation against these adverse reports was still pending when the Government passed the impugned order disallowing the crossing of efficiency bar with effect from July 1, 1979. He submits that on account of the pendency of his representation against these two adverse reports, adverse remarks could not have been taken into consideration while deciding this case.

(3.) A reference to the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 shows that withholding of increments of pay is one of the penalties specified in Rule 5. An explanation to this rule provides that "stoppage of a Government employee at the efficiency bar in the time scale of pay on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar" shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule. It is thus obvious that the stoppage at the efficiency bar does not constitute a penalty under the rules. In this situation, I am of the view that it was not incumbent on the Government to either give a notice to the petitioner or to pass a speaking order while disallowing him from crossing the efficiency bar with effect from July 1, 1979. This does not, however, imply that the Government could have arbitrarily stopped him at the efficiency bar. It could have done so only if he was found unfit to cross the efficiency bar. In the present case, the petitioner had been conveyed two adverse reports for the year 1978-79 and 1979-80. If on the perusal of these two adverse reports, the Government considered the petitioner to be unfit to cross the efficiency bar, it action cannot be described as arbitrary or unfair. If the performance of the petitioner has been assessed as below average or he has not been found fit to discharge the duties of the post and has thus not been allowed to cross the efficiency bar, the action of the employer does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.