https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174902 Stoppage at the efficiency bar was treated as an administrative assessment of an employee's service record, not a punitive action carrying stigma, so no pre-decisional hearing was required under Rule 4.8 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules. The Haryana administrative instructions only required a speaking order enabling representation after the decision, which satisfied natural justice. The governing rule and instructions also contemplated annual scrutiny of the employee held up at the efficiency bar; on the facts, the record had been reviewed each year and the adverse material was communicated and considered. The challenge based on absence of hearing and annual review therefore failed, and the writ challenge to the stoppage orders did not survive. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:31:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174902 Stoppage at the efficiency bar was treated as an administrative assessment of an employee's service record, not a punitive action carrying stigma, so no pre-decisional hearing was required under Rule 4.8 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules. The Haryana administrative instructions only required a speaking order enabling representation after the decision, which satisfied natural justice. The governing rule and instructions also contemplated annual scrutiny of the employee held up at the efficiency bar; on the facts, the record had been reviewed each year and the adverse material was communicated and considered. The challenge based on absence of hearing and annual review therefore failed, and the writ challenge to the stoppage orders did not survive. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 17 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174902