This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 31.1.94 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Arunachal Pradesh, (respondent No. 1) allowing the petitioner to cross his efficiency bar (EB) at the stage of his pay of Rs. 1,800/- PM with effect from 1.11.91 and for a further direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to cross EB at the stage of his pay of Rs. 1,8007- with effect from 1.6.87 instead of 1.11.91. 2. The petitioner has been working in the Department of Environment and Forest, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh as a Head Assistant. In the year 1980, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings but in the year 1981 the suspension order was revoked. Thereafter, in the year 1983, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner for the misconduct of having drawn falsely and misappropriated an amount of Rs.2007- which was payable to Shri KR Deori, Forester, as Festival Advance. The aforesaid charge of misconduct against the petitioner was enquired by the Inquiry Officer and on the basis of the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the respondent No. I held the petitioner guilty of the charge and directed recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs.200/- from the monthly pay of the petitioner at two stages by way of penalty by order dated 6.9.90. By the said order dated 6.9.90, the pay and allowances of the petitioner during the period of his suspension were also limited to subsistence allowance only. The petitioner made a representation against the said order of penalty and the respondent No. 1 passed orders dated 15.7.91 altering the punishment to censure and recovery of Rs.200/- from the monthly pay of the petitioner, By the said order dated 15.7.91 the petitioner was also allowed to full pay and allowances during the period of his suspension. In the meanwhile, the petitioner attained EB at the stage of his revised pay of Rs. 1,800/- and on consideration of the case of the petitioner, the DPC cleared his case for crossing the EB with effect from 1.6.87, but the respondent No. 1 passed the impunged order dated 31.1,94 allowing the petitioner to cross EB at the stage of his pay at Rs. 1,800/- with effect from 1.11.91 instead of 1.6.87. 1,800/- and on consideration of the case of the petitioner, the DPC cleared his case for crossing the EB with effect from 1.6.87, but the respondent No. 1 passed the impunged order dated 31.1,94 allowing the petitioner to cross EB at the stage of his pay at Rs. 1,800/- with effect from 1.11.91 instead of 1.6.87. It is on these facts that the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid order dated 31.1.94 of the respondent No.l and for directing him to allow the petitioner to cross EB with effect from 1.6.87 as cleared by the DPC. 3. In the return filed by the respondents it has been stated that the DPC cleared the case of the petitioner for crossing the EB with effect from 1.6.87 overlooking the fact that the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of censure and recovery of misappropriated amount of Rs.200/- and the recommendation of the DPC was not binding on competent authority. It has been further stated that the petitioner was allowed to cross EB with effect from 1.1191 as the punishment imposed on the petitioner, i.e. recovery of the misappropriated amount of Rs.200/-, was completed only in the month of October, 1991. The respondents have also stated that the guidelines contained in the Government of India, Office Memorandum dated 15.11.75 and the Office Memorandum dated 4.9.85 have been followed by the competent authority while passing the impunged order allowing the petitioner to cross EB with effect from 1.11.91. 4. At the hearing Mr. CR De, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the recovery of Rs.200/- from the petitioner was only to recover the loss caused to the Government and was not a punishment and at any rate the mere fact that recovery of the said amount from the petitioner was completed only in October, 1991, cannot be a ground for the respondent No. 1 to allow the petitioner to cross EB with effect from 1.11.91 when the DPC had recommneded that the petitioner should be allowed to cross EB with effect from 1.6.87. Mr.CR De, therefore, submitted that the impunged order of the respondent No. 1 was arbitrary and unfair and liable to be quashed .by this Court with a direction to the authorities to allow the petitioner to cross EB with effect from 1.6.87 as recommended by the DPC. 5. Mr.CR De, therefore, submitted that the impunged order of the respondent No. 1 was arbitrary and unfair and liable to be quashed .by this Court with a direction to the authorities to allow the petitioner to cross EB with effect from 1.6.87 as recommended by the DPC. 5. Ms.N.Saikia, learned counsel for the respondents, however, relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case od Administrator of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. HP Vora, (1993) Suppl 1 SCC 551, that crossing of EB is a matter within the domain of the authority as specified in the Fundamental Rules and not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or the Court. In the present case, since the respondent No. 1 has on the basis of the Govt of India Office Memorandum dated 15.11.75 and 4.9.85 allowed the petitioner to cross EB at the stage of his pay of Rs. 1,8007- with effect from 1.11.91, this Court ought not to interfere with the said decision of the concerned authority in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. On a perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of HP Vora, I find that in the said case the Bombay Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) after having found that the authorities had committed irregularity after irregularity with regard to the crossing of EB by a Government servant directed the Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli to pass orders within a stipulated time to clear the EB of the said Government servant and to release the two withheld increments and also to pay all other monetary benefits and the Supreme Court held that the direction of the Tribunal related to matters in which the authority specified under Fundamental Rules is to take a decision and which were not within the domain of the Tribunal, but having so held the Supreme Court directed the authority to consider the case of the Government servant for crossing of EB in accordance with the Rules and to make appropriate orders within a stipulated time. I have no manner of doubt that the decision to allow the petitioner to cross EB is within the domain of the ' authorities specified in the Rules but such decision has to be fair to the Government servant concerned and where the authorities specified in the Rules decide the matter in an unfair or arbitrary manner, the Court can always exercise its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution and direct the authorities to reconsider the matter fairly and in accordance with law. In the case of State of UP vs. Dharmendra Prasad Singh, AIR 1989 SC 997 , Vengatchaliah, J as he then was, after quoting the famous words of Lord Hailsham that “the purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of Court,” further held : “When the issue raised in judicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant, or neglecting to take into account of relevant, factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority, entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such a decision, the judicial review of the decision-making process includes examination, as a matter of law, of the relevance of the factors.” 7. The question, therefore, to be considered by the Court is whether the decision of the respondent No. 1 in the impunged order to allow the petitioner to cross EB with effect from 1.11.91 instead of 1.6.87 was taken after according fair treatment to the petitioner and for deciding this question, the Court can further examine whether irrelevant factors were taken into consideration or whether relevant factors were ignored by the respondent No. 1 while taking the impunged decision. Presumably, for according fair treatment to Government servants and for ensuring that relevant factors are considered and irrelevant factors are ignored by the authorities while deciding matters relating to crossing of EB, the Govt. of India has issued guidelines under FR 25 of the Fundamental Rules in GI Deptt. of Per. & Trg. OM No.29014/2/88-Estt (A) dated the 30th March, 1989. of India has issued guidelines under FR 25 of the Fundamental Rules in GI Deptt. of Per. & Trg. OM No.29014/2/88-Estt (A) dated the 30th March, 1989. In the said Office Memorandum dated 3 0.3.89, it has been stated that the procedure and guidelines to be followed in the matter of crossing of EB by the Government servant as contained in the Office Memorandum No.29014/2/75-Estt (A) dated 15.11.75'and subsequent instructions from time to time oh the subject have been reviewed and in supersession of the instructions on the subject, the procedure to be followed by the authorities concerned have been laid down therein. Paras 3, 3.1 and 4 of the said Office Memorandum dated 30.3.89 are extracted herein below: “3. In case of Government servants-(i) Under suspension; (ii) in respect of whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings; (iii) in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending or sanction for prosecution has been issued or a decision has been taken to accord sanction for prosecution; (iv) against whom an investigation on serious allegation of corruption, bribery or similar grave misconduct is in progress; the DPC shall assess their suitability without taking into consideration the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution pending or contemplated against them. However, the recommendations of the DPC shall be kept in a sealed cover. If on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings the Government servant is exonarated of the charges against him, the recommendations in the sealed cover may be considered by the competent authority, who may lift the efficiency bar retrospectively from the date it originally became due. If the proceedings end in imposition of one of the major penalties, the EB case may be reviewed by the DPC with reference to the original recommendations kept in the sealed cover and circumstances leading to the disciplinary action and the penalty imposed. The review DPC in such cases shall, having regard to the circumstances of the case like the date of the cause of action for the disciplinary proceeding and the nature of penalty, specifically give their recommendations whether the crossing of EB can be allowed from the original due date or from a prospective date only. In cases where the disciplinary proceedings end in imposition of a major penalty, the recommendations of the DPC kept in the seated cover shall not be acted upon. 3.1. In cases where the disciplinary proceedings end in imposition of a major penalty, the recommendations of the DPC kept in the seated cover shall not be acted upon. 3.1. A Government servant who is recommended for crossing of EB by the DPC but in whose case any of the circumstances mentioned in para 3 above arise after the recommendations of the DPC are received but before he is actually due for crossing the EB will be considered as if his case had been placed in a sealed cover by the DPC. 4. In a case where a Government servant, who becomes due for crossing of EB is already undergoing a minor penalty, the DPC shall consider his case taking into account the overall record, including the circumstances leading to the disciplinary proceedings and the nature of penalty imposed and give their recommendations regarding his suitability for crossing the bar. If, however, the Government servant is undergoing the penalty of withholding of increment, the crossing of EB shall be given effect to only after the expiry of the period of penalty.” A reading of the aforesaid guidelines and procedure laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 30.3.89 of the Govt of India would show that if a disciplinary proceeding ends in imposition of minor penalty, the DPC having regard to the circumstances of the case and the cause of action for disciplinary proceedings and the nature of the penalty should specifically recommend whether the crossing of EB should be allowed from the original due date or from the prospective date only. So far as the present case is concerned, the date of cause of action of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner appears to be prior to his suspension in the year 1980 and the disciplinary proceedings have ended in minor penalty of censure and recovery of loss of Rs.200/- as mentioned in Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Such date of cause of action for the disciplinary proceedings and the nature of penalty along with the overall record of the petitioner are certainly relevant factors for determining the date on which the petitioner was to be allowed to cross the EB, but the fact that the penalty of recovery of misappropriated amount of Rs.200/-from the petitioner was completed in October, 1991, was totally irrelevant for the purpose of determining as to whether the petitioner should be allowed to cross his EB from the original due date or from a prospective date as, would be evident from the aforesaid guidelines in the Office Memorandum dated 30.3,89 of the Government of India. The aforesaid guidelines, however, state that if the Government servant is undergoing the penalty of withholding of increment, the crossing of EB shall be given effect to only after the expiry of the period of penalty. The respondents may be right in treating the order for recovery of Rs.200/- as a minor penalty within the meaning of clause (iii) of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, but the penalty of recovery of Rs.200/- from the pay of the petitioner cannot be equated with the penalty of withholding of increment under clause (iv)of the said Rule 11 and the crossing of EB by the petitioner cannot be deferred until the amount of Rs.200/- was recovered from the pay of the petitioner in October, 1991. The impugned order dated 31.1.94 passed by the respondent No. 1 allowing the petitioner to cross EB with effect from 1.11.91 is thus vitiated, being one based on irrelevant factors resulting in unfair treatment to the petitioner, and is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.1.94 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Arunachal Pradesh (Annexure IX) is quashed and the respondents are directed to reconsider and decide the question of crossing of EB by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order from the petitioner. But there shall be no order as to costs.