9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Challenge to the decision not allowing the respondent to cross the efficiency bar. - Violation of principles of natural justice in stopping the respondent at the efficiency bar. - Compliance with the rules regarding the crossing of the efficiency bar. Analysis: The case involved an appeal challenging the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which allowed the respondent's Writ Petition against not being allowed to cross the efficiency bar. The respondent, a Mali-cum-Chowkidar, faced allegations of misconduct, including attempted misappropriation of wheat and failure to perform duties efficiently. Adverse entries in his Confidential Report raised doubts about his honesty and integrity. Despite objections, the decision was made not to allow him to cross the efficiency bar for consecutive years. The respondent challenged these decisions through Writ Petitions, citing violations of natural justice and non-compliance with rules. The High Court found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the respondent was not given an opportunity to represent his case before being stopped at the efficiency bar. It emphasized the employee's right to have their case considered annually for crossing the efficiency bar. The appellant argued that the case was reviewed yearly as per rules and no prior explanation was necessary. The court noted that Rule 4.8 of Punjab State Service Rules did not require a hearing before decisions on crossing the efficiency bar. The instructions by the Haryana State Government also supported the view that a speaking order sufficed for representation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in requiring an opportunity for the respondent to explain before being stopped at the efficiency bar. It clarified that the stoppage was not punitive and did not carry stigma. The decision was subjective, based on relevant facts, and a speaking order allowed for post facto representation. The Court found that the respondent's case had been reviewed annually as per rules, contrary to the High Court's assumption. The dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition challenging similar issues was also noted. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the appeal with no costs awarded. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenges to the decision on the efficiency bar, the principles of natural justice, and the compliance with relevant rules. It clarified the procedural requirements for stopping an employee at the efficiency bar, emphasizing the subjective nature of such decisions and the necessity of a speaking order for representation. The Court upheld the annual review of the respondent's case and overturned the High Court's decision based on the legal principles and factual considerations presented in the case.
|
