Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hy.State Etc vs Puran Singh on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044704
2024:PHHC:044704
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
214
RSA-2686-1998 (O&M)
Decided on : 03.04.2024
Haryana State and others .....Appellants
Versus
Puran Singh .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, D.A.G., Haryana
for the appellants.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (Oral)
1. The appellants have filed the instant appeal against
judgment and decree dated 27.10.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Hissar, whereby suit for declaration filed by the
respondent/plaintiff has been allowed and judgment and decree dated
29.05.1998 passed by learned District Judge, Hissar, whereby an appeal
filed by the appellants/defendants against judgment and decree dated
27.10.1997 has been dismissed.
2. The lower Appellate Court while affirming the trial Court
judgment had set aside the order dated 11.09.1995 and order dated
23.11.1995 passed by the State, whereby the respondent/plaintiff was
not allowed to cross the efficiency bar, to be illegal, null and void. But
the relief granted by the trial Court for granting an opportunity of
hearing to the plaintiff before passing a order afresh was set aside on
the ground that average report cannot be considered adverse especially
when those were never conveyed to the plaintiff. The adverse entry for
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044704
2024:PHHC:044704
the year 1987-88 was also average and in column No.3, the integrity
was shown doubtful but no reasoning in support thereof was given for
recording this entry and without giving reasons, the same cannot be
passed. Moreso, these have not been conveyed to the plaintiff.
Accordingly, on the basis of the adverse remarks for the year 1987-88,
the efficiency bar cannot be disallowed in the year 1994. Therefore, the
trial Court had wrongly allowed defendant No.2 to pass a fresh order
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff.
3. Learned State counsel, on instructions from Dr. Om
Parkash, Mechanical Engineer o/o Chief Superintendent, Government
Livestock Farm, Hissar, submits that since there is no stay in the present
appeal, the judgments passed by the Courts below have been
implemented and the plaintiff/respondent has been allowed to cross his
efficiency bar and he has further been promoted to the post of Tractor
Driver and retired as such on 31.07.2011, on attaining the age of
superannuation and is now getting pension.
4. Even otherwise, as per the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others : 2008(3)
S.C.T. 429, all the adverse remarks are to be communicated to the
employees. Since in the present case, the adverse remarks of the
plaintiff/respondent regarding his integrity were not communicated to
him, therefore, the judgments/decrees passed by the Courts below does
not require any interference.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044704
2024:PHHC:044704
4. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of
accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
03.04.2024 JUDGE
Kothiyal
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
