Mohinder Pal, J. - (1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed by the defendant (appellant herein) against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby the appeal of the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 26.5.1987 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Panipat has been dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff (respondent herein) had joined Haryana State Electricity Board (for short -'the Board') on 4.2.1969 as Line Superintendent. He was promoted as a Junior Engineer and then as an Assistant Engineer against which post he had been working w.e.f. 31.3.1978. It is the case of the respondent that he was to cross the efficiency bar on 1.3.1983, but he was not allowed to cross the same till the date of filing of the suit without any cogent reason. The appellant -Board issued a letter dated 15.1.1986 in continuation of its previous letter dated 19.7.1985. According to these letters, the respondent was informed that his case was again reviewed and as there was no improvement in his record, therefore, he was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar for a period of one year. In reply to the letter dated 15.1.1986, the respondent submitted that the impugned order was not a speaking order as neither any show cause notice was ever issued to him nor any adverse remarks in his ACRs were ever conveyed to him, which is against the principles of natural justice. On these grounds the respondent filed the suit for declaration that he was entitled to cross the efficiency bar which was withheld by the appellant w.e.f. 1.3.1983 without any cogent reason. The suit was contested by the appellant by stating that the impugned order stopping the respondent to cross efficiency bar was valid and legal as the service record of the respondent had not been found to be good. According to the appellant the overall work in the annual confidential reports for the period 1.4.1979 to 31.3.1980, 1.10.1980 to 31.3.1981, 11.5.1981 to 31.3.1982 and 1.10.1982 to 31.3.1983 had been assessed to be 'Average'. The trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence. It finally came to the conclusion that the act of the appellant in not permitting the respondent to cross efficiency bar could not be upheld as no adverse remarks were ever conveyed to him. It was held that the impugned orders were based on remarks which were not conveyed to the respondent and hence, these were illegal and not binding on the rights of the respondent. Consequently, the respondent was held entitled to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.3.1983 which was due date. It was also held that the respondent would be entitled to the arrears of increment w.e.f. 1.3.1983. The appeal filed by the appellant -defendant against this order was dismissed and hence the present regular second appeal. While arguing before me, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent was not entitled to cross -efficiency bar as his work and conduct during the relevant period was average and he was given chance to improve but he had not improved his work and conduct.
(3.) NO one has appeared on behalf of the respondent.;