1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

I am directed to refer to your application representations, dated the 1st January, 1981, 16th April, 1981 and 12th July, 1981 and to say that your case for crossing of efficiency bar w.e.f. 1st December, 1979 was considered in the Board. It is regretted that it has not been found possible to agree with the same. (Sd.) (S. HASAN ASKARI), Administrative Officer"

2. Thereafter, the appellant, who had already retired, preferred an appeal to the President of Pakistan, on 6th February, 1982 through proper channel. This appeal was withheld by C.B.R. vide their letter, dated 7th March, 1982 and the appellant was informed accordingly vide Commissioner of Income‑tax, East Zone, Karachi, endorsement, dated 28th March, 1982. After that, the appellant came up in appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal and the said appeal is being disposed of by this order.

3. We heard the learned counsel from both sides. It is an admitted position that the appellant had never been communicated any adverse remarks. His performance was, therefore, to be reckoned of a standard, which warranted that he be, allowed to cross the efficiency bar, which fell due on 1st December, 1979. The C.B.R. in their written statement have taken the absurd stand that the stoppage of efficiency bar was not a penalty. If stoppage of increment is a penalty under the E & D Rules, then surely l the stoppage of crossing of efficiency bar, which is another name for an increment, cannot be viewed differently. An equally absurd stand of Central Board of Revenue which does not need any comment is :‑ "The officer was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar because of his indifferent service record. Even otherwise after retirement his claim because superfluous and redundant."

4. Further replies by the Central Board of Revenue are tabulated :‑ (a) Efficiency bar .was not considered plausible by the competent authority who is not bound to communicate the reasons as to the rejection of the claim of the officer. (b) The competent authority has full powers to permit or not to permit a civil servant to cross the efficiency bar. (c) There is no necessity of communication of any adverse remarks for stoppage of efficiency bar under the rules. (d) The stoppage of efficiency bar was an administrative order and not a punishment.

5. All that we would like to say with regard to the replies of the Central Board of Revenue quoted at para. 3 and paraphrase at para. 4 above, is that no book of service law which we have been following, would support the said Board in their contentions. All their arguments are patently untenable and hence rejected as being against the rules and the spirit thereof.

6. As a result of the foregoing analysis we accept the appeal and order that the appellant, who had a clean record as no adverse remarks were over communicated to him, would be entitled to the crossing of efficiency bar which fell due on 1st December, 1979. His pay would be refixed accordingly and the consequent arrears due to him, paid at the earliest. This refixation of pay would have effect on his pension which, too, would be worked out afresh in the light of this judgment.

7. No order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal accepted.