Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a special leave petition against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which had dismissed the petitioner's claim for crossing the efficiency bar. The petitioner, S.K. Vaish, was an Assistant Engineer in Telecom Engineering Service Group 'B', having been promoted on April 16, 1979. He faced suspension and disciplinary proceedings, which ultimately resulted in compulsory retirement imposed on June 30, 1986. On appeal, the department modified the punishment to partly suspension and partly in service by proceedings dated February 16, 1979. The petitioner challenged this in O.A. No. 1690/90, and by order dated February 14, 1992, the Tribunal allowed the application, directing that he be treated as on duty for all purposes including pay and allowances. He retired on superannuation on May 31, 1992. Prior to that, on June 8, 1990, he had filed a representation for crossing his efficiency bar. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on January 21, 1992, considered his record, including adverse entries for the years 1979-80, 1980-81, and 1981-82, and recommended that he was unfit to cross the efficiency bar. This was communicated to him on February 7, 1992. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated February 15, 1996 in O.A. No. 978/92 accepted this position and dismissed his claim. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that after reinstatement, the efficiency bar should be considered based on his subsequent record, that the adverse entries should be reconsidered in light of the Ministry's letter dated September 18, 1991 in O.M. No. 7(28)/EIII/91, that his representation was not properly considered, and that the sealed cover procedure should apply to keep the efficiency bar crossing pending. The Supreme Court found no force in these contentions. It held that the sealed cover procedure does not apply to consideration of crossing the efficiency bar because if disciplinary proceedings became final, the exercise would be fruitless, and the question would arise only upon reinstatement. The Court noted that after reinstatement the petitioner had hardly worked for three months, and there were adverse entries for three successive years. The DPC, considering the available record, recommended unfitness, and the Tribunal accepted this. The Court found no illegality in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the special leave petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Efficiency Bar - DPC Assessment - Not an Act; Government O.M. No. 7(28)/EIII/91 dated 18.09.1991 - The petitioner, after reinstatement and retirement, sought crossing of efficiency bar alleging non-consideration of subsequent record and non-production of records; DPC met on 21.01.1992, considered available record including adverse entries for 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, and recommended unfit; Tribunal accepted DPC finding. Held that DPC's assessment was proper and no illegality exists (Paras 1-2). B) Service Law - Sealed Cover Procedure - Applicability to Efficiency Bar - Not an Act; administrative instructions - The petitioner contended that sealed cover procedure should apply and keep crossing of efficiency bar pending during departmental enquiry; Court held that if disciplinary proceedings became final, exercise would be fruitless, and only upon reinstatement would the question arise; hence sealed cover procedure does not apply (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was entitled to cross the efficiency bar after reinstatement; whether the sealed cover procedure applied to the consideration of crossing the efficiency bar during pendency of departmental proceedings.
Final Decision
Special leave petition dismissed. The Supreme Court found no illegality in the Tribunal's order and no force in the petitioner's contentions. Held that sealed cover procedure does not apply to crossing of efficiency bar; DPC's assessment was proper. No relief granted.
Law Points
- DPC assessment of efficiency bar based on available record including adverse entries valid
- sealed cover procedure does not apply to crossing of efficiency bar during pending disciplinary proceedings
- crossing of efficiency bar arises only upon reinstatement
- adverse entries for three successive years justify finding unfit to cross efficiency bar
