BHANA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHANA Ram petitioner was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector. His crossing of efficiency bar was due on April 1, 1983. However, the same was withheld vide order Annexure P-l dated November 5, 1984. Subsequently vide order dated February 11, 1985, Annexure P/2, Deputy Inspector General' of Police on review of the record of the petitioner withheld crossing of efficiency' bar for one year w. e. f. April 1, 1983. These two orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) IN the meantime the petitioner was compulsorily retired w. e. f. March 31, 1991, though the order was dated December 2, 1990. This order was successfully challenged in the writ petition, which was allowed vide order dated March 27, 1991, and the petitioner was reinstated.

(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after confirmation of the petitioner the adverse "entry of "doubtful Integrity" recorded for the period 1980-81 could not be taken into consideration while deciding the case of crossing of efficiency bar. We are afraid this contention cannot be accepted. Adverse entries of different types have different effect in service matters. Two types of orders are passed: one relating to confirmation, promotion or grant of selection grade/higher grade and the other for crossing of Efficiency Bar or retention in service/compulsory retirement. If orders like confirmation or promotion to a higher rank are passed, the adverse remarks contained in Confidential Reports prior thereto lose their significance for giving further promotion or confirmation on the promoted post. However, this position is not applicable to the second category of cases relating to crossing of Efficiency Bar or retention in service after completion of 25 years or beyond 50 or 55 years of age. In this category of cases, the entire service record even before the orders of confirmation, promotion or grant of selection grade etc. has to be considered. Particular reference may be made to an adverse entry of "integrity Doubtful", which, as per instructions of the State Government, usually affects the service career for about 10 years, which fact has not been disputed. In Om Parkash Mahajan v. State of Punjab, 1992 (1) S. L. R. 309, which was a case of premature retirement and adverse entry of "doubtful Integrity" was made, it was held by G. R. Majithia, J. that the adverse entry was not washed off even by promotion. We are also of the same view, as expressed above. The impugned orders Annexures P/1 and P/2, which were passed taking into consideration the adverse entry of "doubtful Integrity", are valid orders and cannot be quashed.