HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION versus RAM AVTAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 663 · Decided: 17-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1 .. 
HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION 
A 
v. 
RAM AVTAR AND ANR. 
JANUARY 17, 1996 
[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, .T.T.] 
B 
Punjab Civil Seivices Rules (as applicable in State of Hmyana). 
Rules 4, 8 Hmyana State Govemment Instmctions dated 29.1.1974, 
Paragraph 4-Efficiency bar-Stoppage at-Opportunity of hearing to C 
employee before permitting or non-permitting him to cross efficiency 
bar-Held, need not be givel!-Order stopping an employee at efficiency bar 
should be a speaking order containing material detail~onsideration of all 
material before passing the order is sufficient compliance of requirement. 
The respondent, a Mali-cum-Chowkidar in the service of the appel-
D 
lant-Corporation was awarded adverse remarks in his confidential report 
for the year 1986-87 to the effect that his honesty and integrity was 
doubtful, he was in-efficient, lazy, indisciplined and was not performing 
his duties satisfactorily. The report was conveyed to him and his repre-
sentation against the remarks was rejected, Later, on consideration of his 
earlier service record including the adverse entries, he was not allowed to 
cross the efficiency bar for one year with effect from 1.2.1988; and for 
another year with effect from 1.2.1989, as there was no improvement in his 
efficiency. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court 
challenging the two orders not allowing him to cross the efficiency bar as 
also for expunction of the adverse remarks in the Confidential Report for 
the year 1986-87. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. 
E 
F 
The case of respondent for crossing the efficiency bar with effect 
from 1.2.1990 was again considered and was decided against him. The 
respondent filed a second writ petition challenging the said order as also G 
the adverse entries in his Confidential Report for the year 1986-87. The 
High Court allowed the Writ petition and directed the appellant to afford 
the respondent an opportunity to represent his case. Aggrieved the Cor-
poration tiled the appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that under the rules no oppor- H 
663 
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A tunity to explain was required to be given to the employee before passing 
an order with regard to permitting or non-permitting him to cross the 
efficiency bar; and that the High Court erred in assuming that the case of 
the respondent for crossing the efficiency bar was not considered every 
year. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court was not right in holding that an oppor· 
tunity should have been granted to the respondent before an adverse 
decision is taken with regard to non-crossing of efficiency bar. Rule 4.8 of 
C Punjab Service Rules, which deals with the efficiency bar, does not con· 
template any bearing being granted to an employee before a decision is 
taken with regard to permi.tting or non-permitting an employee to cross the 
efficiency bar. Further, Paragraph 4 of the instructions dated 29.1.1974 
issued by the Haryana State Government, validity whereof has not been 
challenged, clearly states that it is not necessary before it is decided to stop 
D a Government employee at an efficiency bar to inform him in writing of the 
grounds on which it is proposed to take such action. (667-G·H, 668·A·B] 
1.2. Stoppage of an employee at the efficiency bar is not by way of 
punishment and does not cause any stigma on an employee. When an 
E efficiency bar ls inserted in a time scale it only means that at that stage 
annual increment is not as of right but the bar will be removed, and an 
employee allowed further increments, if the authority concerned comes to 
the conclusion that such an employee in not inefficient. An opinion to this 
effect has necessarily to be a subjective one though it must be based on 
relevant facts. [688·E·F] 
F 
1.3. In the instructions, it has been stated that an order stopping an 
employee at an efficiency bar should be by speaking order and sufficient 
details should be given so that an employee can make a representation 
against the same. Besides, such an order can also be subjected to judicial 
G review. The passing of speaking order, however, does not mean that before 
the authority concerned comes to the conclusion of stopping of a person 
at the efficiency bar stage, an opportunity of hearing must be given to him. 
Consideration of all material before taking the decision is sufficient com· 
pliance of the re<1uirement. (668-F-H] 
H 
1.4.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.