In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.2117 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:19.9.2011 The State of Punjab and another .....Appellants v. Sohan Lal .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. None for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This regular second appeal is directed by the defendants (appellants herein) against the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar, whereby the appeal of the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.1986 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ropar has been partly allowed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff (respondent herein) was working as Head Constable in Punjab Police. It is case of the respondent that he was to cross the efficiency bar on 1.1.1983 raising his R.S.A. No.2117 of 1988 [2] pay from `525/- to `540/- in the scale of `450-15-525/15-600/20-700, but the same was withheld vide order dated 22.3.1983 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ropar. The representation submitted by him before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala was dismissed vide order dated 14.2.1984. The plaintiff further submitted representation before the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh, which was dismissed vide order dated 7.8.1984. The Superintendent of Police, Ropar passed another order dated 26.3.1984 withholding the efficiency bar of the plaintiff for another one year w.e.f. 1.1.1984. He filed civil suit for declaration that the orders dated 22.3.1983, 14.2.1984, 7.8.1984 passed by the Superintendent of Police, D.I.G. of Police, Patiala Range and the Director General of Police respectively and the order dated 26.3.1984 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ropar withholding the efficiency bar of the plaintiff to be illegal, void and against the principles of natural justice. He also prayed for the payment of arrears of pay. It is the case of the plaintiff that his efficiency bar had been withheld on the basis of the adverse remarks made in his ACRs but the same were never communicated to him, therefore, the same could not be taken into consideration. It has also been alleged that no opportunity was afforded to him to defend his case. On notice, the defendants contested the suit and submitted that the plaintiff was afforded full opportunity to defend himself and the adverse remarks in the ACRs were duly communicated to him and correct procedure was adopted. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as five issues. However, the main issue i.e. whether the orders dated 22.3.1983 and 26.3.1984 passed by S.P. Ropar withholding the plaintiff's R.S.A. No.2117 of 1988 [3] efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.1.1983 and 1.1.1984 were illegal, null and void was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants/appellants and the same were set aside after recording evidence. It finally came to the conclusion that the act of the appellants in not permitting the respondent to cross efficiency bar could not be upheld as no adverse remarks were conveyed to him before issuing of show cause notice. It was held that the impugned orders were based on remarks which were not conveyed to the respondent and hence, these were illegal and not binding on the rights of the respondent. Consequently, the respondent was held entitled to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.1.1983 and 1.1.1984 respectively which were due dates. The appeal filed by the appellants-defendants against this order was partly allowed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar by holding that appeal as regards the order dated 22.3.1983 whereby the efficiency bar of the respondent had been withheld w.e.f. 1.1.1983 was dismissed and the appeal as regards the order dated 26..3.1984 withholding the efficiency bar for one year w.e.f. 1.1.1984 was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside to that extent. It was held that as regards order dated 22.3.1983, the show cause notice was issued before the adverse entries were conveyed to the respondent but in the case of order dated 26.3.1984, the respondent was duly informed about the adverse remarks in his ACRs and it was not pointed out that the respondent had made any representation against the said adverse remarks in his ACRs. Hence, the order dated 26.3.1984 whereby the efficiency bar of the respondent was withheld for one year i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.1984 was upheld by the first appellate Court. The State of Punjab has come in second appeal against setting aside R.S.A. No.2117 of 1988 [4] the order dated 22.3.1983. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the appellants. As no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, I have perused the records of the case carefully. While arguing before me, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the appellants has submitted that the gist of the adverse entries were mentioned in the show cause notice and the plaintiff- respondent had been given ample opportunity to clear his position and the orders passed by the competent authorities were passed after considering all the facts. After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any force and is liable to be dismissed. From the record, it is evident that the confidential reports for the period 1.10.1980 to 31.3.1981 and 1.10.1981 to 23.2.1982 were not duly communicated to the respondent as these were conveyed to him on 2.12.1983 i.e. much later and even after the issuance of show cause notice dated 22.2.1983. Mr. Ram Parkash (DW-1), Steno to the Superintendent of Police, Ropar, appeared and deposed that these reports were conveyed to the respondent on 2.12.1983. This fact had also been ignored by the Deputy Inspector of General of Police, Patiala Range in his order dated 14.2.1984. As the show cause notice was issued on the basis of these reports on 22.2.1983 i.e. much before its communication, hence no fault can be found in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below in setting aside the order dated 22.3.1983 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ropar. The concurrent findings of fact reached at by the first R.S.A. No.2117 of 1988 [5] appellate Court warrant no interference in this regular second appeal. In the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by by the first appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. September 19, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*