S.K. Vaish Vs. Union of India & Ors  INSC 1121
(11 September 1996)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Faizan Uddin (J) G.B. Pattanaik (J)
O R D
Special Leave Petition has been filed against the order dated February 15, 1996 made in O.A. No.978/92 of the CAT,
Principal Bench, New
Delhi. The admitted
position is that the petitioner after his promotion as Assistant Engineer in
Telecom Engineering Service Group 'B' on April 16, 1979 was kept under suspension and disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against him. On June 30, 1986, punishment was imposed by way of
compulsory retirement. The same came to be challenged by way of an appeal. On
appeal, the Department directed that the punishment be treated partly as suspension
and partly as in service by proceedings dated February 16, 1979. When the petitioner challenged the same in O.A. No.
1690/90, by order dated February 14, 1992, the same was allowed and direction
was given to treat him as on duty for all purposes including pay and
allowances. After reinstatement, the petitioner retired from service on
attaining superannuation on May 31, 1992.
He had prior to that filed representation for crossing his efficiency bar.
impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the D.P.C. had considered his case
for efficiency bar and found him not fit and, therefore, he is not entitled to
the relief. Thus, this special leave petition.
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when he was reinstated
into service the efficiency bar was required to be considered after taking into
account his subsequent record. What was stated was adverse entries for the year
1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82.
was no reconsideration in the light of the direction issued by the Ministry in
the letter dated September 18, 1991 in O.M. No. 7(28)/EIII/91 that all pending
cases should be considered to bring them on par with the scale of pay
recommended by the 4th Pay Commission, the petitioner had given a
representation but the same was not considered; even direction given to produce
the record was not followed.
the Tribunal ought to have drawn adverse entries and directed that the
petitioner was entitled to cross the efficiency bar and he also contended that
sealed cover procedure as is invoked that direction should also be considered
for the crossing of the efficiency bar and kept pending when the departmental
enquiry was pending against him.
find no force in the contention. The petitioner has not brought to our notice
any circular issued by the Government and it is obviously incongruous for the
reason that in event of the petitioners disciplinary proceedings becoming
final, the exercise to consider the question crossing efficacy bar would be
fruitless. It would be unnecessary to consider the case for efficiency bar. It
would be only in the event of his being reinstated in the service that the
question of consideration of his crossing efficiency bar would arise.
Therefore, the sealed cover procedure in consideration of question of efficacy
bar does not apply. It is seen that after the representation was made by the
petitioner on June 8,
1990, the matter was
referred for consideration by the D.P.C. D.P.C. had met on January 21, 1992 and considered the record of the
petitioner. After reinstatement, he had hardly worked for three months. It
would appear that for three successive years, there were adverse entries
against the petitioner. Consequently, DPC as considering the record of the
petitioner which was available, recommended that he was unfit to cross
efficiency bar. The same came to be informed to the petitioner vide letter
dated February 7, 1992. The Tribunal also had accepted
this position. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the
order passed by the Tribunal warranting issue of notice.
special leave petition is dismissed.