NET RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge Karnal by which the appeal filled by the State of Haryana was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that impugned orders passed by the Deputy Secretary stopping the plaintiff to cross the efficiency bar, on 17.9.1979, 21.5.1980, 22.1.1981, 12.10.1982, 19.4.1983 and 6.3.1984 are illegal and against the Rules of natural justice. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that he may be restored with all the benefits of the arrears withheld under the impugned orders.

(3.) The plaintiff's case, as pleaded by him in the plaint, is that he had been posted as a Clerk in the grade of Rs. 110-4-130/5-160/55-525; that his pay after allowing him to cross the efficiency bar was to be raised form 160 to Rs. 165/- with effect form 1.12.1978 when he was posted in the Treasury Office, Sonepat; that during this period, the Deputy Secretary, Finance Haryana stopped him to cross his efficiency bar, vide orders mentioned above. The plaintiff's contention is that he had been stopped to cross his efficiency bar on the basis of his service record which had not been assessed good; that, as per established principles of law, an uncommunicated remark could not be treated adverse; that as pleaded by the plaintiff himself during the years 1973-74, 1977-78, and 1980-81 he had been conveyed certain remarks which have been reproduced by the plaintiff in paragraphs 4,5 and 6 of the plaint; that the plaintiff had made a representation against the adverse remarks entered in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1980-81; that he had not received any adverse remarks except the one referred to above; that the plaintiff was to cross his efficiency bar on 1.12.1978 and uptil 1.12.1978 he had more than 50 per cent good reports and, as such he was eligible to cross the efficiency bar in view of the Government instructions: that on 1.12.1979 also, the service record of the plaintiff remained the same and as such, there was no occasion to stop him further form crossing the efficiency bar; that all these impugned orders are illegal, void, mala fide and not binding upon him; that the stopping of the efficiency bar of an employee is a punishment; that his efficiency bar was stopped since 1978 without any show - cause notice of the proposed punishment.