1. ORDER Saad Saood Jan (Chairman).--The appellant is a Senior English Teacher. He was due to cross the efficiency bar on 1 6-1967, but this was withheld from him. However, he was allowed to cross the bar w. e. f. 1-6-68, but was not given the advantage of service from 1-6-67 to 31-5-68 in refixation of his pay. He filed a Civil Suit challenging the order of the departmental authorities in withholding the efficiency bar from him with a cumulative effect. On the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the suit abated and he has now come to this Tribunal. It is not disputed that the question whether a civil servant is or not to be allowed to cross the efficiency bar is not a matter to be decided in routine but, on the other hand it requires a positive decision by the competent authority. This decision is to be based upon the fitness of the Civil servant concerned, lt is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he received adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports in 1964 and 1965. These remarks were duly communicated to him and he made representations for their expunction The representations were rejected in 1970. It is to be observed that adverse remarks were recorded by two different Headmasters. One of these Headmasters was Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan. The learned counsel has pointed out that Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan was a man of dubious reputation and as such the remark s made by him with respect to the appellant should not be taken seriously. The other Headmaster was Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khan. The learned counsel has not been able to impugn the integrity of Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khan. With respect to the remarks made by Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khan, all that the appellant has been able to say is that he had served under this Headmaster only for four months. We do not think that this period was too short for Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khan to make an assessm ent of the work of the appellant. In view ofi the adverse entries recorded by two different Headmasters in the AnnualM Confidential Reports of the appellant, we are unable to hold that the order of | the competent authority in withholding the efficiency bar for one year from the appellant was without any justification. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that under rule 4.8 of Civil Service Regulations, Vol. I, the efficiency bar could not be withheld with) cumulative effect.
2. We do not find any force in this contention. Thep rule clearly gives the power to the competent authority to hold the efficiency! bar with cumulative effect. In view of the record of the appellant, as alluded to above, we do not think that the order for withholding the efficiency bar with cumulative effect was uncalled for. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any force in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed ln limine.