R. K. Manisana, J.-IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged an order of 26 May 1988 of the Governor of Manipur allowing the petitioner to pass efficiency bar at the stage of Rs. 1,840/- raising his pay to Rs.1,920/- per month in the scale of pay of Rs, 1630-70- 1840-80-EB-80-2320/- with effect from 1 March 1988 on the ground that he was due to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1 March 1983. 2. Before dealing with the merits of the case, it would be important to note the principles of /enforcement of the efficiency bar. Rule 24 of the Fundamental Rules runs as follows : "An increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment may be withheld from a Government servant by the Central Government or by any authority to whom the Central Government may delegate this power under Rule 6, if his conduct has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment, the withholding authority shall state the period for which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments.” Rule 25 of the Fundamental Rules provides : "Where an efficiency bar is prescribed in a timescale, the increment next above the bar shall not be given to a Government servant without the specified sanction of the authority empowered to withhold increments under Rule 24 or the relevant disciplinary rules applicable to the Government servant or of any other authority whom the President may, by general or special order, authorise in this behalf." Under Rule 24, ordinarily, a Government servant is entitled to draw his increment as a matter of course unless it is withheld. The increment can be withheld by any authority specified thereunder if the conduct of the Government servant has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. We are of the opinion that the same conside­ration must apply to a case where the efficiency bar is imposed under Rule 25 for the reason that, if the efficiency bar is enforced, the Gover­nment servant is denied further increment, which amounts to withholding the increment. In other words, the efficiency bar can be imposed when the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct of the Government servant has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. In other words, the efficiency bar can be imposed when the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct of the Government servant has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. Therefore, where the cases of the Government servants for crossing the efficiency bar in the time-scale of pay is considered at an appropriate time, and in a case where a decision is taken to enforce the bar against a Government servant, he should be informed of the decision. The object and the purpose underlying the communication is to afford an opportunity to the Government servant to improve his work and conduct, and to remove the defects for which he was stopped at the bar to an extent sufficient to warrant removal of the bar. The cases of all the officers held up at efficiency bar should be reviewed from time to time with a view to determine whether their quality of work and conduct have been improved and whether the defects for which they were stopped at the bar have been remedied. The result of the enforcement of the efficiency bar is that the Government servants is denied further increments which may affect his service career. Under these circumstances, if passing of the efficiency bar is allowed, or if the efficiency bar is enforced, as a routine matter, it is bound to affect the administrative efficiency or there will be denial of further increment of the Government servant, as the case may be. Therefore, the appropriate authority has to apply its mind to the relevant and admissible facts and circumstances sugg­esting the inference to the effect that the conduct of the Government servant has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory while coming to the decision for enforcement of the efficiency bar. 3. The petitioner was appointed by an order dated 30 March 1985 to MCS Grade-I (selection grade) in the scale of pay of Rs. 1630-70-1840-EB 80-2320/- per month with effect from 10 March 1981. The case of the petitioner Is what no Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted then the impugned order dated 26 r lay 1988 was passed, and that the concerned authority had failed to apply its mind while considering his case for crossing the efficiency bar. 4. 1630-70-1840-EB 80-2320/- per month with effect from 10 March 1981. The case of the petitioner Is what no Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted then the impugned order dated 26 r lay 1988 was passed, and that the concerned authority had failed to apply its mind while considering his case for crossing the efficiency bar. 4. It is not disputed that the cases of the Government servants for crossing the efficiency bar in a time-scale of pay shall be considered by a Committee which shall be same as the Departmental Promotion Committee, and that at the relevant time the Committee constituted for considering the cases of the Government servants for crossing the efficiency bar need not sit in a meeting but may consider such cases by a circulation of papers. 5. As regards the allegations of the petitioner, the Government has not filed affidavit-in-opposition nor produced the relevant records. " Therefore, it is presumed that the allegations made by the petitioner are correct. This being the position we have to quash the impugned order.” 6, For the foregoing reasons, we quash the impugned order dated 26th May 1988 and direct the concerned authority to reconsider the. case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with jaw. No costs, Y.Ibotombi Singh, J.- I agree.