AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Sub Inspector of Police, is aggrieved by the order February 12,1982, by which he was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar which was due on October 1,1979. The petitioner challenges this order on two fold basis. Firstly, it is claimed that the impugned order was passed on the basis of certain confidential reports which had not been communicated to him. As a result, he had no opportunity to controvert the observations made against him. Secondly, it is claimed that the efficiency bar had actually fallen due on February 21,1975, and, therefore, only the record relevant till then could have been taken into consideration.

(2.) The respondents controvert the petitioner's claim. Firstly, it is alleged that the adverse reports for the years 1970-71 and 1972-73 had been duly communicated to the petitioner. Secondly, it has been further pointed out that the petitioner's case for crossing the efficiency bar with effect from February 21,1975, was considered but he was not found fit in view of his record of service.

(3.) Mr. Sunil Panwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the adverse reports had actually not been communicated to the petitioner. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the findings of fact recorded in Civil Suit No.481 of 1978 which had been filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dated May 25,1975, by which he had been reverted from the post of Sub Inspector to that of Assistant Sub Inspector.