Regular Second Appeal No. 2281 of 1982 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2281 of 1982 Date of Order: 24.09.2008. State of Punjab ...Appellant Versus A.S.I. Kewal Krishan No.2107/SGR. ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab, for the appellant. Mr. Manu Bhandari, Advocate for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The State of Punjab lays challenge to the judgments and decrees, dated 29.09.1980 and 23.12.1981 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala and Additional District Judge, Patiala, decreeding the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing their appeal respectively. Kewal Krishan, an Assistant Sub Inspector filed a suit praying for an issuance of a declaration that the order dated 16.05.1978, withholding his efficiency bar with effect from 01.10.1973, was illegal and malafide, therefore, should be set aside. The appellant opposed the prayer by raising a plea that they were entitled to pass such an order in view of respondent's adverse service record. After considering the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the order of the S.S.P., Patiala dated Regular Second Appeal No. 2281 of 1982 -2- 15.06.1978 withholding the crossing of the efficiency bar of the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.10.1973 is illegal, void, malafide, arbitrary and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff?OPP 2. Whether the order of the DIG Police, Patiala Range, Patiala dated 15.06.1979 is illegal?OPP 3. Whether notice under Section 80 CPC served by the plaintiff is valid ?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?OPD 5. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form?OPD 6. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to entertain any try thus suit?OPD 7. Relief. After considering pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial Court decreed the suit by holding that the adverse remarks, which were taken into consideration by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala for withholding the efficiency bar had been expunged and, therefore, could not form the basis for passing of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial Court, the State of Punjab filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Patiala, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that the first appellate Court erred in holding that the respondent had crossed the efficiency bar automatically by efflux of time. It is submitted that the right to pass an order, with respect to the efficiency bar vests with the appointing authority and, therefore, even if the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Regular Second Appeal No. 2281 of 1982 -3- Police, Patiala, was quashed, the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to hold that the respondent was deemed to have corssed the efficiency bar. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that, though, there may be an error in the choice of word by the first appellate Court, but in essence the effect of the judgment is that the order dated 16.05.1978 withholding the respondent's efficiency bar w.e.f. 01.10.1973 stood quashed and that the respondent would be deemed to have crossed the efficiency bar with all other consequential benefits accruing thereon. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. I find no reason factual or legal to differ with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. As noticed herein above, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala passed an order on 16.05.1978 withholding the respondent's efficiency bar w.e.f. 01.10.1973. The order is not only illegal but also irrational. It would be necessary to mention here that the adverse entries that form the basis for passing of an order of withholding of efficiency bar had already been expunged and, therefore, could not form the basis of order withholding the efficiency bar. The Senior Superintendent of Police ignored this fact and proceeded to arbitrary pass the impugned order. The learned courts below, therefore, did not commit any error in quashing the order dated 16.05.1978. As no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. September 24, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE