Man Mohan Singh Gujral, J. - (1.) The petitioner joined service in 1944 at Hoshiarpur hut at the relevant time he was working as a Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner at Jullundur. In 1955 he was served with a charge-sheet and dismissed from 'service on the 3rd Sept., 1962. This order was ultimately 'quashed by this Court in Civil Writ No. 604 of 1965 decided on the 7th March, 1967. During the inquiry, the question of allowing the petitioner to cross efficiency bar came up before the appropriate authority and it was decided that he be not allowed to cross efficiency bar with effect from the 26th March, 1957, as an enquiry was pending against him. After the order of the petitioner's dismissal was quashed by the High Court he made an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur, to refix his pay after allowing him to cross efficiency bar with effect from the 26th March, 1957. No reply received to this application and to some other reminders till the 9th March, 1971, when he was informed through letter Annexure-M that the efficiency bar case could not be taken up unrest the inquiry pending against him was decided and that his pay could not be fixed till the efficiency bar case was settled. Again another communication was sent to him (Annexure N) whereby he was informed, that by order dated the 22nd Feb. 1957, he was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar and that as the inquiry against him had not yet been finally decided, permission could not be granted to him to cross efficiency bar While this matter was under consideration, the post of an Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner fell vacant and the petitioner considering himself to be senior most applied for been a promoted. By order dated the 9th June, 1971 (Annexure P) be was informed that he had been ignored in the matter of promotion on account of unsuitability for the said post.
(2.) It may be mentioned at this stage that while the first inquiry was going on against the petitioner another complaint was received against him from one Shanti Devi and on the basis of that another inquiry was started On a preliminary inquiry conducted' by the Revenue Assistant in respect of this complaint, it was proposed to give him a warning but a departmental inquiry was ordered in 1962 After his termination was set aside another charge-sheet was served on him and this inquiry was pending in 1971 when communications Annexures M and N were received by the petitioner. Having failed to get his pay fixed and having been ignored for promotion, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that the orders declining to allow him to cross the efficiency bar and refusing to promote him be quashed. It was also prayed that the respondents be directed to supply him copies of various orders which had been passed against him.
(3.) The petition was contested on behalf of the respondents through the affidavit of Shri Ram Gopal, Deputy Commissioner, and it was admitted that the petitioner was not allowed to cross efficiency bar with effect from the 26th March, 1957. It was also accepted that after his reinstatement the petitioner had again applied for re fixation of his pay But this was not done as a departmental inquiry was still pending against him It was further accepted that an inquiry was started in 1960 but that it was held in abeyance as he was dismissed during the pendency of the inquiry. It was further brought out that after bis reinstatement in pursuance of the orders of the High Court the inquiry proceedings were reopened in 1967 and that the inquiry was still pending when the petition was filed. With regard to the promotion of the petitioner, the case of the respondents is that he was considered along with eligible persons and was not found suitable for promotion and was, therefore, ignored, with regard to the copies of the orders, it was asserted that he bad been given all the relevant copies.;