1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑Ch. Muhammad Ishaque has trade this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act wherein he has impleaded Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore as respondent.

2. The appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 15th September, 1981 be set aside and a direction be issued to allow him to cross the efficiency bar from 21st August, 1970.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was due to cross efficiency bar w.e.f. 21st August, 1970 raising his pay from Rs. 525 to Rs. 565 per month in the scale of Rs. 350‑35‑5251'40‑

685. The powers to allow cross of efficiency bar were withdrawn from the Commissioners of Divisions. The Commissioner, Sargodha Division, therefore, referred the case to the Board of Revenue. At that time because of some departmental proceedings pending against the appellant, he was placed under suspension vide Board of Revenue order, dated 25th July, 1975. The appellant had also earned a bad report for the year 1970 i.e. immediately after the efficiency bar fell due. A representation filed by the appellant for expunction of the adverse remarks is said to have beets rejected. No decision regarding crossing of efficiency bar could be taken till 27th April, 1981 when the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore refused to allow the official to cross the efficiency bar. The appellant made an appeal before the full Board of Revenue. His appeal was heard by Mr. .M. Aslam Awais, Syed Asad Ali Shah and Mr. A. K. Khalid, Members Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and ordered, vide their order dated 15th September, 1981 that crossing of efficiency bar be withheld for a period of two years and the appellant was allowed to cross it w.e.f. 21st August, 1972. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had excellent service record throughout of his service except adverse remarks for the year 1970. The representation was filed by the appellant for expunction of these adverse remarks given to him during the year 1970 which is still pending and has not been decided so far. In view of excellent reports of the appellant during his service, it was not fair to withhold the efficiency bar due on 21st August, 1970. It was also vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that A. C . Rs. prior to year 1970 were good hence there was no reason whatsoever for withholding of the efficiency bar of the appellant falling in August, 1970. The report for the year 1970 which was written on 24th Ma 1971 the adverse remarks recorded therein, could not have any effect retrospectively on the crossing of his efficiency bar which was due much earlier on 21st August, 1970. Concluding his arguments it was prayed by the appellant's counsel that the impugned order, dated 15th September, 1981 be set aside and the appellant be allowed to cross the efficiency bar from the due date i.e. 21st August, 1970.

5. Rebutting the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant the learned District Attorney on behalf of respondent submitted that he would rely upon the parawise comments submitted by the respondent which are self‑explanatory. He would also rely on the detailed order, dated 15th September, 1981 of the full Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, wherein full facts of this case have been discussed and dealt in detail. Thus, the decision taken by the full Board of Revenue is perfectly in order and grievance of the appellant has already been redressed. .

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused carefully the documents so attached with this appeal. It is clear from the impugned order; dated 15th September, 1981 that the decision in this case has been taken keeping in view the latest policy embodied in the circular letter No. SOR III‑2‑9/77, dated 9th March, 1977. It is worth mentioning that the matter regarding crossing of the efficiency bar was concerning the year 1970, as crossing the efficiency bar was due on 21st August, 1970 therefore, the application of the instructions issued on 9th March, 1977 retrospectively for the year 1970, was not in order. We have consulted the record to arrive at a conclusion to find out which instructions/rules, would be applicable in this case. If a reference is made to the Punjab Civil Establishment Code (Part 1) compiled by Regulations Wing of the S. G. A. & I Department, dated 1st October, 1982 pages 118 to 120 where instructions regarding grant of annual increments/crossing of efficiency bar have been mentioned, only two circulars issued, vide No. SO IV (S & GAD) 1‑44/61, dated 5th February, 1966 and S & GAD No. SOR III‑2‑9/77, dated 9th March, 1977. have been listed showing the procedure for grant of annual increments and grant of permission to cross the efficiency bar. As this matter is concerning the crossing of efficiency bar of the appellant for the year 1970, hence only procedure as mentioned, vide S & GAD circular letter, dated 5th February, 1966 would be applicable in the present case and not the procedure, dated 9th March, 1977 so relied upon by the members Board of Revenue, Punjab; Lahore while deciding the appeal of the appellant, vide their order, dated 15th September, 1981 as mentioned earlier. It has been laid down in the procedure for grant of crossing of the efficiency bar, vide circular letter, dated 5th February, 1966 that the record of the Government servant was required to be properly scrutinized before permission is given to cross the efficiency bar. On scrutiny of the record if a Government servant is found fit to cross the efficiency bar, a specific sanction order was required to be issued and if the Government servant found unfit to cross the efficiency bar, a formal order to that effect was also to be recorded, to enable the concerned Government servant to appreciate his position correctly. In the appel lant's case he was due to cross the efficiency bar on 20th August. 1970 thus it was required that the service record of the appellant should have been scrutinized well ahead of this due date and the Department concerned was required to initiate his case well in time to decide the issue of crossing or otherwise of his efficiency bar. As the date of crossing of the efficiency bar of the appellant was 20th August, 1970 hence the A. C. Rs. of the appellant required to be scrutinized, were upto the year ending 1969. The A. C. R. for the year ending December. 1970 was not relevant in this case and could not be applied retrospectively to this case. At the most what the Department could do ; they could call for a special report for the period upto 21st August, 1970 from the concerned quarters which was not done. Hence in this case the relevant record which was required to be scrutinized under the policy laid down dated 5th February, 1966 was A. C. Rs. up to 1969. It has been certified by the Board of Revenue that the service record/A, C. Rs. of the appellant period to the year 1970 were good, hence there was no justification for with holding of the efficiency bar of the appellant which fell due on 21st August, 1970. The appellant should have been declared fit to cross the efficiency bar on this date keeping in view his service record/A. C. Rs., prior to the year 1970.

7. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that there is no justification for withholding the efficiency bar of the appellant due on 21st August, 1970. It is directed that the appellant be allowed to cross the efficiency bar on due date i.e. 21st August, 1970. The appeal of the appellant is accepted and the impugned order, dated 15th September, 1981 is directed to be modified to‑the extent that the date of crossing of the efficiency bar of the appellant shall be taken as 21st August, 1970 instead 21st August, 1972. There will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal allowed.