Ghulam Rasool Bodla, Retired Sub-Engineer. Irrigation Department has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the orders conveyed vide No. 1751-52/PF, dated 10-11-1982 through which the Efficiency Bar has been with--held.
2. The appeal is at the preliminary stage of hearing and the appellant has impleaded Government of the Punjab, through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore and the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Bahawalpur as respondents.
3. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the order dated 10-11-1982 containing the orders No. All/72/9838-39 and All/72/ 11435-36 be set aside and the remarks expunged ; being illegal, void and ineffective. He has further prayed that he be declared entitled to the payment of arrears consequent to crossing of Efficiency Bar since 1965 to date of his retirement i.e. 18-3-1972.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the Efficiency Bar of the appellant due on 1-6-1965, 1-6-1966, 1-6- 1967, 1-6-1968 and 1-6-1969 was withheld by Superintending Engineer, Headquarters, Irrigation, Bahawalpur Region. Bahawalpur vide order No-A11l72, 19838-39/18/5-E, dated 18-3-1972 and Efficiency Bar was also withheld, due on 1-6-1970 and 1-6-1971 vide order of the same authority vide No. All/72/11438-39 dated 5-4-1972. In the meanwhile the appellant was also retired from service w.e.f. 18-3-1972 under MLR No. 144. The appellant made a representation to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Bahawalpur Zone, Bahawalpur, regarding crossing of this Efficiency Bar vide his application dated 4-9-1982 which was disposed of by the Superintending Engineer, Bahawalpur Circle vide No. 1751-52/PF dated 10-11-1982 informing the appellant that the case of this Efficiency Bar had already been decided in the year 1972. Hence this appeal..
5. I have heard the arguments .Of the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Efficiency Bar of the appellant due on 1-6-1965 and that up to 1-6-1971 has been withheld by the competent authority unlawfully and illegally. The appellant had a good service record up to 1963. In the year 1963, the appellant reported against his superiors regarding embezzlements of the Government money, which annoyed his superiors, and resulted in spoiling of his ACRs. For the year 1963, which was due to enmity and no consideration should have been given to this A. C. R. Of the appellant. Again in the year 1965, his A. C. R. Was spoiled by the same officer. He had made the represen--tation against these A. C. Rs. And should have been accepted on these valid grounds.
Thus there was no justification for withholding of his Efficiency Bar. Rebutting these arguments the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department, submitted that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred. His Efficiency Bars were withheld in the year 1972 as per decision of the departmental authority while the appellant had made a representation for the same in the year 1982 and submitted the appeal to this Tribunal in the year 1982 also. Thus. The appeal is time barred by 10 years and is not maintainable. Even on merits the appellant has no case: He had bad service record and his Efficiency Bar was thus correctly withheld as he was not found fit to cross the same.
6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments put forward by the parties and have also gone through the A. C. Rs. And have also perused the record of this case. It is clear from the letter No. 1787/PF, dated 22-10-1975, from the Superintending Engineer, Bahawalnagar Circle, addressed to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Bahawalpur, that the orders of withholding the Efficiency Bar of the appellant were conveyed to him at his home address as reported by the Executive Engineer Fordwah vide his letter No. 4876-77iP, dated 16-10-1975 It is thus clear that the appellant was conveyed the orders regarding withholding of his Efficiency Bar, in the year 1975. As he has made appeals in the year 1982, thus it is proved from the record that this appeal is hopelessly time- barred by seven years and is not maintainable.
7. Even on merits, his A. C. Rs. Have been perused and it is clear from these that he had a bad service record. Thus, the action of the competent authority for withholding his Efficiency Bars was perfectly in order, lawful and no injustice has been done to the appellant.
8. Keeping the above analysis in view, there is no merit in the appeal which is also hopelessly time barred and is dismissed in limine.