IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 3920 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 2, 2008 RAM MEHAR NARWAL ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. RK Birbian, Advocate, for the appellant. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant is that although in para-15 of the judgment rendered by the first appellate court, the adverse remarks recorded in ACR (Exhibit P1) for the period from 11.7.1996 to 19.12.1996, have been expunged, the mandatory injunction directing crossing of efficiency bar, has not been issued. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, I have noticed that ACR (Exhibit P2) for the period from 10.11.1997 to 24.3.1998, has been held to be perfectly legal. Orders dated 26.11.2002 (Exhibit P5) and 12.4.2001 (Exhibit P9) have also been upheld. RSA 3920 of 2007 2 I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court (para-17), wherein it has been noticed that the documentary evidence on the case file was self-explanatory about the act, conduct, integrity and character of the appellant. The principles of natural justice were complied with by the authorities concerned at each and every stage and the appellant was given an opportunity to explain his view point and to put across his case and was heard at length before making the entry. Having regard to the record of the appellant, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises, for consideration, calling for interference in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to draw the attention of the Court towards any material that has been ignored or any evidence that has been perversely read. On the contrary, learned counsel wants this court to re-appreciate the evidence so as to come to a different conclusion, which is not permissible in the Regular Second Appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. May 2, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE