IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3555 of 1989(O&M) Date of decision:05.09.2011 Puran Singh, Service Engineer, P.R.T.C., Kapurthala. ...Petitioner versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, through its Chairman. ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, and Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petition contains a prayer for quashing of the order dated 03.06.1988 issued by the respondent-Management stopping efficiency bar of the petitioner for one year effective from 01.01.1985. 2. The petitioner gives out in great detail his past employment history with the respondent where he had been time and again victimized by the respondent-Management, but he had the benefit of corrections administered through judicial interventions. The petitioner would point out to the termination of service, later reinstated by the order of the High Court and several other proceedings including action for contempt Civil Writ Petition No.3555 of 1989(O&M) - 2 - against the respondent. This is stated in the context of how the petitioner had been singled out for stopping efficiency bar on a specific ground that his performance was not satisfactory. He was a Mechanic in a shed and the imputation against him was between the period 01.04.1984 to 31.12.1984 when he was serving at Faridkot depot, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles from the depot had been recorded as amongst the lowest and the petitioner must take responsibility for not effectively servicing the vehicles as Service Engineer. The petitioner had responded specifically to this charge and through a communication made on 08.02.1988, he had given the details of the performances of various depots as follows:- “Name of Depot KMPL Bhatinda I 3.65 Bhatinda II 3.72 Barnala 3.67 Ludhiana 3.79 Chandigarh 3.76 Budhlada 3.82 Faridkot 3.82” This showed that Faridkot had recorded the highest kilometer per liter for the vehicles in use and, therefore, the imputation that he had not taken care effectively of the servicing was not correct. 3. When the order came to be passed on 03.06.1988 reiterating the very same basis for stoppage of efficiency bar, namely, the special report by the Depot Manager for the period 01.04.1984 to 31.12.1984 and his overall performance had been unsatisfactory, the petitioner points Civil Writ Petition No.3555 of 1989(O&M) - 3 - out that the specific details furnished in his representation dated 08.02.1988 has not been adverted to at all. The contention is, therefore, that the order of stoppage of efficiency bar was clearly motivated and had no bearing to an objective promotion appraisal. The petitioner has given the past history of his service and the several instances where the respondent had acted unfairly against the petitioner to give an additional ground for his plea that the respondent's assessment was neither fair nor just. 4. The contentions advanced by the petitioner are weighty enough to see that the imputation against the petitioner was not fair and betrayed lack of objectivity in their approach. The impugned order does not simply makes reference to the important data brought through his representation. It is a clear lack of an application of mind on the part of the respondent to visit the adverse order against the petitioner. The same is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to have consequent monetary benefits reckoned and paid to him within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. I am informed that the petitioner has retired from service on 30.04.1993. It is all the more necessary that the monetary benefits are paid without any further delay. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 05.09.2011 sanjeev