R.S.A. No. 1988 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1988 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.2.2009 State of Haryana and another ....Appellants Versus Jhabar Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Ms.Kirti Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the respondent. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment of the learned first Appellate Court dated 20.3.2008. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit claiming that his efficiency bar had been wrongly withheld vide orders dated 14.12.1995 passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sirsa and that he was due to cross the same on 1.8.1995. The said order was challenged by way of a civil suit and vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.1997 it was set aside and he was allowed to cross his efficiency bar with a direction that a fresh order be passed after affording an R.S.A. No. 1988 of 2008 (O&M) -2- opportunity of being heard to him. But the appellants instead of complying with the orders of the civil Court, passed a fresh order dated 20.4.1998 and stopped him to cross the efficiency bar due on 1.2.1995, 1.2.1996 and 1.2.1997 and further vide order 12.6.1998 again stopped him to cross the efficiency bar which was due on 1.2.1998. The respondent/plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid orders being illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. The appellants, who were defendants, pleaded that the record of the respondent/plaintiff was not good and ultimately he was stopped to cross the efficiency bar on the ground that there were adverse remarks in the ACRs for the years 1989-90, 1992-93 and 1993-94. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get his efficiency bar cross w.e.f. 1.2.1994?OPP 2. Whether the order dated 20.4.1998 passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways and the order dated 12.6.1998 regarding stopping of crossing of efficiency bar are illegal and liable to be set aside?OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Relief. The learned trial Court concluded that the orders dated 20.4.1998 and 12.6.1998, Exhibits P-6 and P-8, respectively, which R.S.A. No. 1988 of 2008 (O&M) -3- were assailed by the plaintiff/respondent, were erroneous, null and void, and having not been passed in accordance with the Govt. instructions and against the principles of natural justice they were set aside. But at the same time instead of directing the appellants to allow the plaintiff to cross the efficiency bar, directions were given that fresh orders be passed after giving notice to the respondent within a period of three months. In appeal by the plaintiff/respondent, the findings were upset, which has resulted in filing of the regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the ACRs of the respondent were not good and that being so he could not have been permitted to cross the efficiency bar. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that there was nothing on record to show that the ACRs were ever conveyed to the respondent. That apart, it was contended that earlier also order was passed stopping the respondent from crossing the efficiency bar but that was set aside and the case was remanded back for passing the fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing, yet the same was not done and the impugned orders were passed. It was contended that the finding recorded by the first Appellate Court cannot be termed to be erroneous. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment. It has been noticed in the judgment of the first Appellate Court that the appellants had failed to place on record the ACRs to substantiate their case that the respondent was having a bad service R.S.A. No. 1988 of 2008 (O&M) -4- record. It has also not been proved that even if these ACRs containing adverse remarks existed, they were conveyed to the respondent or not. That being the position, the whole case of the appellants falls flat and the reasons for withholding the efficiency bar have not been adequately established. In this view of the matter, both the Courts had rightly set aside the orders dated 20.4.1998 and 12.6.1998 which were impugned by the respondent. Once there was no material on record to substantiate the pleas and allegations as set out by the appellants against the respondents and no other material pleaded was proved to show as to why the efficiency bar was withheld, it cannot be said that the same could be withheld. Therefore, the first Appellate Court has rightly concluded that the respondent is entitled to cross the efficiency bar from the date it was claimed. No merit. Dismissed. 19.2.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss