RSA No. 1960 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1960 of 2005 Decided on : 30 -04-2009 Haryana State through Commissioner & Secretary to Transport Department Govt. of Haryana, Chandigarh and others ....Appellants VERSUS Karambir ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. O.P.Sharma, Additional A.G., Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal by the State of Haryana is directed against the judgments of the learned Trial Court dated 30.11.2004 and that of the learned First Appellate Court dated 02.03.2005. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit that he had been working as Conductor with Haryana Roadways since 11.12.1989 and was to cross efficiency bar and obtain pay scale which was denied to him for no reasons. The appellants who were arrayed as defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to the crossing of the efficiency bar for the reason that there were two entries in the ACRs for the period 1990-91 and 1997-98 which were adverse against him as he was charged with embezzlement of Rs.5/- and 8/-. RSA No. 1960 of 2005 2 Learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide its judgment dated 30.11.2004 and held him entitled to cross the efficiency bar and also held him entitled to the Ist Standard pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.2000 alongwith arrears at the rate of 9% interest. In appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, the findings were affirmed which has resulted in filing of the present regular second appeal by the State of Haryana. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the aforesaid findings has contended that findings recorded by both the Courts below are erroneous for the reason that it has been noticed by the Courts below that opportunity of hearing was not granted to the plaintiff before withholding the efficiency bar of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that such a requirement is un-known to law for crossing of efficiency bar as stoppage of efficiency bar is not a punishment, therefore, no notice was required to be given. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the ACRs regarding doubtful integrity could not have been recorded as they are totally contrary to the instructions dated1.12.1995 wherein it was expressly provided that where conductors are involved in one or two cases of fraud below the amount of Rs.50/- should not result in recording of ACRs with doubtful integrity and the first and second fraud of such like natures be disposed of with fine which is 10 times and 20 times of the amount of embezzlement respectively. It was thus pleaded that in view of these instructions the adverse entries could not have been recorded in the manner they have been. It was further contended that efficiency bar could not have been stopped merely because of the recording of the two ACRs which in any eventuality could not have been recorded and there is no other RSA No. 1960 of 2005 3 material on the basis of which plaintiff-respondent could be debarred from crossing his efficiency bar. No other point was urged I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments. The appellants could not dispute the instructions which were relied upon by the plaintiff-respondent and which were also before the Courts below. But learned counsel for the appellants rather contended that the instructions stood withdrawn and produced before this Court notification to that effect. A perusal of this however shows that the same were withdrawn in the year 2004. Therefore, they are of no consequence and have no bearing on the facts of the case. Consequently, the instructions relied upon by the respondent which warranted imposition of fine for first two instances involving embezzlement of amount below Rs.50/-to the tune of 10 times and 20 times of the amount of embezzlement involved were applicable to him. In this view of the matter, the recording of ACRs of doubtful integrity against the plaintiff-respondent was certainly unjustified as it was totally contrary to the instructions of the appellants themselves. There is no other material on record from where it could be inferred that the respondent deserves to be stopped from crossing the efficiency bar and also from getting first standard pay scale which is admissible to the persons who have completed regular satisfactory service. Once the Courts held that ACRs are bad in view of the instructions stated above, there is no reason to debar the respondent from crossing the efficiency bar and get first standard pay scale as prayed for by him. RSA No. 1960 of 2005 4 Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by both the Courts below cannot be termed to be erroneous or perverse so as to warrant interference in a regular second appeal. The appeal being totally devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. April 30, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge