- (1.) IT is proposed to dispose of the above mentioned two appeals by this common order as they arise from the same order of the learned Collector, Bharatpur, dated 30-6-1965 and turn on the same points.
(2.) BY the aforesaid order, the learned Collector allowed the appellant, Jagannath Prasad, Patwari, to cross the efficiency bar from 1-4-62 instead of 1-4-60. In the case of Kela Prasad, Patwari, he allowed him to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1-4-64 instead of 1-4-60. The grounds in both the cases were that the annual confidential reports of these officials were not satisfactory. It may be mentioned here that a similar order was passed in respect of Madan Lal Patwari who was allowed to cross the efficiency bar on 1-4-62 instead of 1-4-60. The appeal filed by him was rejected by a learned Member of this Board on 23-6-66 on the ground that refusal to cross the efficiency bar is not a punishment under the Rajasthan Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules, and, therefore, the impugned order was not appealable. While agreeing with the above finding, I would like to observe that sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act confers on the Board of Revenue wide powers of general superintendence and control over all revenue courts and all revenue officers subordinate to it and, therefore, this Board may make use of these powers whenever it is found that the subordinate courts or officers leave the path prescribed by law and act in complete disregard thereof The law with regard to efficiency bars is contained in rule 30 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. A perusal of this rule would show that it is heavily loaded against the Government Servant It lays down that where an efficiency bar is prescribed in any time scale, the increment next above that bar shall not be given to a Government Servant without the specific sanction of the authority empowered to withhold increments. It, further, lays down that when a Government servant is allowed to cross an efficiency bar which has, previously been enforced against him, he shall draw the pay in the time scale at such stage as the authority empowered to withhold increments may fix, provided that the pay so fixed shall not exceed the pay that he would have drawn had he not been stopped at the efficiency bar. This clearly shows that the efficiency bar comes into operation automatically as soon as the same is reached in the time scale in which the Government servant stands fixed. It can be crossed only when the prescribed authority specifically sanctioned the same. It is admitted that the efficiency bar in the above mentioned two cases came into operation on 1-4-60. The appellants, therefore, could not cross the same unless it was lifted by the competent authority. This was done by the Collector vide his order dated 30-6-65. The recital of this order shows that Jagannath prasad and Kela Prasad, Patwaris, were allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1-4-62 and 1-4-64 respectively. In view of the aforesaid rule, the,patwari can have no grievance against the impugned order. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and, therefore, reject the above mentioned two appeals. Before parting with the case, however, I should like to draw the attention of the subordinate officers to note 2 under rule 30. This note requires that the cases of all Government servants held up at an efficiency bar should be reviewed annually with a view to determining whether the quality of their work has improved and generally whether the defects for which they were stopped at the bar have been remedied to an extent sufficient to warrant the removal of the bar. It, further, says that if they are subsequently allowed to cross the bar, it should not be given retrospective effect. In view of this provision, a reference was made to the Collector in these cases to send the relevant record to this Court and also to indicate whether the cases of these officials were reviewed annually or not as required under this note. It appears from the reply received from the Collector that the cases of these patwaris were not reviewed annually. It is also admitted by the Collector that the adverse entries recorded against the patwaris were not communicated to them to enable them to remove their defects. These are lapses on the part of the authorities which cannot be overlooked. The importance of communicating adverse entries to defaulting officers cannot be over-enpasized, both in the interests of the defaulter as well as in the general interest of good administration. It is only through this process that an erring official can be alerted and thus given an appor-tunity of improving his work. This also affords an opportunity to the official concerned to make a representation against the adverse entries and seek such timely redress as may be available to him. Similarly, the rule regarding the annual review of cases held at efficiency bar is also very salutary and any departure from this rule cannot be allowed to go un-noticed. I would very much like the Collector to investigate how this lapse came to occur in these cases and to take suitable action against the defaulting officers. It should also be ensured that such lapses do not recur. . ;