In a verdict that would help bring transparency in the appraisal of government officers, the State Information Commission (SIC) has ruled in favour of bureaucrats being allowed to view their Annual Confidential Reports and find out how they have been rated against benchmark grades. Till now, officials were only allowed to view the document if there was an adverse comment against them and not if they secured grades below the benchmark levels. A difference that the SIC verdict has now blurred.
The landmark judgement — which was delivered by State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) R N Das in a clubbed petition from three officers—- will also make it difficult for political leadership to tinker with ACRs and deny promotions/deputations based on them.
Relying on instructions given at the end of the CR forms for IAS/IPS officers, Das concluded that ACRs form the basis and are vital inputs for performance assessment and promotions. Hence, the “confidential reports” are for the express purpose of “performance appraisal” and thus, a “joint-exercise” between the officer reported upon and the reporting officer, he ruled.
The issue put forth by the petitioners was whether ACRs may be shown to officers when they doubt that their grading is lower than the benchmark grades. While officers who have been given adverse remarks are allowed to see reports, such is not the case with officers who continuously secure grades below benchmark levels. In his judgement, Das held that this lack of knowledge robs the officers of the opportunity of improving their performance.
What has elated the officers’ corps in Gandhinagar is the paragraph that explains the significance of showing ACRs. It states: “If an officer is reported as outstanding or very good by the reporting authority, but the reviewing or accepting authorities with no direct supervision over the work of the officer reported upon, downgrade the report resulting in withholding of the promotion, then in such cases not disclosing the ACRs would amount to injustice to the officer.”
In another part, the judgement underlines that service records (including CRs) are maintained in public duties and therefore disclosure of the CRs to the officers reported upon would be in public interest. As the CRs are used by the governments for the purposes of promotions, gradation, deputation of public servants (all meant to serve public interest), their disclosure too falls in larger public interest.
Quoting from a CAT verdict (Prasanta Gupta and others…), Das held that a steep downgrade is to be construed as an adverse remark making it a suitable case for communicating it to the officer. Das further quoted an SC judgment (also quoted by CAT in another case) that downgrades that are not communicated cannot be considered against the applicant and the same would need to be ignored. Holding a mirror before the GAD, the verdict quoted its circular dated March 6, 2004, which says that any upgrade or downgrade by reviewing or accepting authority, without giving a reason would not be acceptable.
The final hearing was held on March 13. While the Public Information Officers (PIOs) of GAD and Home Department quoted Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) verdicts, the petitioners relied on a Supreme Court verdict and the Tripura Information Commission.
Courtesy : Expressindia.com
The landmark judgement — which was delivered by State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) R N Das in a clubbed petition from three officers—- will also make it difficult for political leadership to tinker with ACRs and deny promotions/deputations based on them.
Relying on instructions given at the end of the CR forms for IAS/IPS officers, Das concluded that ACRs form the basis and are vital inputs for performance assessment and promotions. Hence, the “confidential reports” are for the express purpose of “performance appraisal” and thus, a “joint-exercise” between the officer reported upon and the reporting officer, he ruled.
The issue put forth by the petitioners was whether ACRs may be shown to officers when they doubt that their grading is lower than the benchmark grades. While officers who have been given adverse remarks are allowed to see reports, such is not the case with officers who continuously secure grades below benchmark levels. In his judgement, Das held that this lack of knowledge robs the officers of the opportunity of improving their performance.
What has elated the officers’ corps in Gandhinagar is the paragraph that explains the significance of showing ACRs. It states: “If an officer is reported as outstanding or very good by the reporting authority, but the reviewing or accepting authorities with no direct supervision over the work of the officer reported upon, downgrade the report resulting in withholding of the promotion, then in such cases not disclosing the ACRs would amount to injustice to the officer.”
In another part, the judgement underlines that service records (including CRs) are maintained in public duties and therefore disclosure of the CRs to the officers reported upon would be in public interest. As the CRs are used by the governments for the purposes of promotions, gradation, deputation of public servants (all meant to serve public interest), their disclosure too falls in larger public interest.
Quoting from a CAT verdict (Prasanta Gupta and others…), Das held that a steep downgrade is to be construed as an adverse remark making it a suitable case for communicating it to the officer. Das further quoted an SC judgment (also quoted by CAT in another case) that downgrades that are not communicated cannot be considered against the applicant and the same would need to be ignored. Holding a mirror before the GAD, the verdict quoted its circular dated March 6, 2004, which says that any upgrade or downgrade by reviewing or accepting authority, without giving a reason would not be acceptable.
The final hearing was held on March 13. While the Public Information Officers (PIOs) of GAD and Home Department quoted Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) verdicts, the petitioners relied on a Supreme Court verdict and the Tripura Information Commission.
Courtesy : Expressindia.com