Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had allowed a writ petition filed by an employee challenging the decision of Haryana Warehousing Corporation not to allow him to cross the efficiency bar. The employee had joined as Mali-cum-Chowkidar in 1972 and was in the pay scale of Rs. 800-15-1010 EB-20-1150. In 1986-87, an adverse entry was recorded in his confidential report to the effect that his honesty and integrity was doubtful and he was lazy, undisciplined, and not performing duties satisfactorily. He was caught red-handed attempting to misappropriate one bag of wheat on 9.3.1987 and confessed, and earlier he had failed night duty and misbehaved with a senior officer. The adverse entry was communicated to him and his objections were rejected. His case for crossing the efficiency bar was considered w.e.f. 1.2.1988, and he was stopped at the bar for one year. In the following year, he was assessed as average and again stopped at the bar w.e.f. 1.2.1989. These two orders and the adverse entry were challenged in Writ Petition No.1836 of 1990, which was dismissed by a Division Bench on 11.7.1990. The employee's case was again considered w.e.f. 1.2.1990, and by order dated 6.8.1990 he was stopped at the efficiency bar for a further period of one year w.e.f. 1.4.1990. This led to a second writ petition, Civil Writ Petition No.5848 of 1991, in which the High Court held that principles of natural justice were violated because no opportunity of hearing was given before the stoppage orders, and directed the employer to afford an opportunity to explain adverse material. The Supreme Court considered whether natural justice required a pre-decisional hearing before stopping an employee at an efficiency bar. It held that Rule 4.8 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules did not contemplate any hearing before a decision on crossing the efficiency bar. Stoppage at an efficiency bar was not punishment and did not cause stigma; it merely meant that annual increment at that stage was not as of right. The instructions dated 29.1.1974 required the order to be a speaking order with sufficient details so that the employee could make a representation, thereby providing a post facto hearing and enabling judicial review. The court found that the adverse entry had been communicated and objections considered and rejected, and the employee's case was reviewed annually as required. The High Court had also failed to refer to the dismissal of the earlier writ petition, which the Supreme Court found unsatisfactory. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and allowed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Efficiency Bar - Natural Justice - Rule 4.8 Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol.1 Part-1 and Haryana State Government Instructions dated 29.1.1974 as amended by 24.11.1974 - Stoppage at efficiency bar is not punishment and does not cause stigma; no opportunity of hearing required before decision to stop at bar; a speaking order giving sufficient details suffices, enabling employee to make representation; adverse entry communicated and objections considered and rejected, hence natural justice complied - Held High Court erred in directing pre-decisional hearing; appeal allowed (Paras 1-4). B) Service Law - Annual Review of Efficiency Bar - Rule 4.8 Note-3 Punjab Civil Service Rules - Cases held up at efficiency bar must be reviewed annually to see if defects remedied; in present case employee's case was considered every year in accordance with rules, contrary to High Court's assumption that review was not done - Held High Court's finding that review not done is incorrect (Paras 1-4). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Res Judicata/Constructive Res Judicata - Dismissal of Earlier Writ Petition - Earlier Writ Petition No.1836 of 1990 challenging same adverse entry and first two stoppage orders was dismissed by Division Bench on 11.7.1990; High Court in impugned judgment failed to even refer to said dismissal - Held failure to consider earlier dismissal is unsatisfactory; judgment set aside (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether principles of natural justice require an opportunity of hearing before an employee is stopped at the efficiency bar
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment set aside; no order as to costs. Supreme Court held no pre-decisional hearing required for stopping at efficiency bar; speaking order and post-decisional representation suffice; adverse entry communicated and objections considered, hence natural justice complied; case was reviewed annually under Rule 4.8.
Law Points
- Stoppage at efficiency bar is not punishment and does not cause stigma
- no pre-decisional hearing required
- speaking order with sufficient details enables representation
- post facto representation is a concept not unknown to natural justice
- annual review required under Rule 4.8
- adverse entries must be communicated and objections considered
