Disclosures of Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) comes under Official Secret Act

[murgie]

There are many intermediate positions possible between making ACRs completely public (i.e. available to absolutely ANYone) and completely secret (even the candidate is uninformed). Natural justice requires that at least the
candidate be informed and given an opportunity to respond.

Whether it should also be made available to a wider audience is debatable. A candidate could be given the choice of making his own ACR public. Some public good could also result if some systematic data can be gathered from ACRs while yet preserving privacy. For e.g. when doctors in the US bill their patients they have to fill out a form which includes say, the illness he came in for, and that portion (not the identity of the patient) is passed onto some central information system that feeds the Center for Disease Control, so it serves a need to maintain public health. In a similar way redacted ACRs may help create data for a useful database to study research questions dealing with administration. Best,

Murgie

[karira]

‘Blotting’ ACR secretly is wrong, rules CAT

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Hyderabad: In a judgment that could bring more transparency into employees’ performance assessment, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Friday ruled that any adverse remarks recorded against employees in their annual confidential reports (ACRs) without being informed should be ignored by departmental promotion committees (DPCs).

Admitting petitions filed by two employees who alleged that they were denied promotions citing adverse remarks in their ACRs, the Hyderabad bench of CAT, comprising vice chairman justice P Lakshmana Reddy and M Jayaraman, member (administration), delivered the judgment.

The bench ordered a review of the DPC’s decision in respect of the petitioners - K Jagannadha Rao, a stenographer of the Ship Building Centre, Visakhapatnam, and M Khousar Baig, an LDC of the Small Industries Service Institute, Hyderabad. The bench also directed the authorities to ignore the adverse remarks against the two as they were not communicated to them denying them an opportunity to contest or improve their performance.

Citing several Supreme Court judgments and its own earlier decisions, the bench was of the view that the authorities should communicate any remarks they make in ACRs to the employees concerned.

The authorities argued before the CAT that the term ‘average’ used in the ACRs of the two employees was not an adverse remark and hence they did not feel the need to convey the same to the petitioners. But when their respective DPCs met, they ignored the petitioners for promotion citing their average performance and promoted their juniors on the basis of ‘good and outstanding’ performance in ACRs.

The bench was of the firm opinion that the term ‘average’ was an adverse remark and marred the promotion chances of the petitioners.

Welcome

[abhijeet]

Sleepless night for promotion....(one has to spend sleepless nights -thinking if one will get promoted! if one can get the desired deputation! and so on..)
I had experince of getting 1st promotion in class 1 cadre just after completion of only 19 years of service and so many persons retired having only one promotion, that too in a central Govt. Department. So they don't had to have any "sleepless" night for thinking for "desired" promotion.

[The Great]

There is a chance that, if a subordinate officer Fight for his Right..... the Authority may note a negative remarks in his ACR, and as the sub ordinate doesnt know it, he could not be able to defend himself. Hence it should be made public, if the concerned Authority is rightly impartial.

[vashisthvivek]

From the provisions under the Act, especially under S.8, it is clear that there is nothing which obstructs the disclosure of the ACRs. When the Act does not bar the disclosure of the ACRs, there is no point in keeping the ACRs secret. It is one of the very important documents of one's career and the ACR writting should be transparent, which can only be done by making the ACRs public.

[wagh7]

dear friends,

I strongly feel that this is a very bogus method of accessing any junior or subordinate.

What is the use of any accessment which did not give a chance to the person to explain about his stand. It is just nothing but using marshal law.

rakatkam.

[SANJEEV SAHNI]

Hi,

I am working in an Autonomous Body under the Ministry of Education

In my office for promotion to the post of P.A. there is always a policy of pick and choose. Those who are near and dear of HODs are being selected overlooking the seniority factor of other employees as there is a provision of interview. Those who passed the skill test are placed for interview and during interview whosoever near to HOD is selected for promotion even if he is junior most

Management can cut any name during Interview irrespective he/she tops the skill test or hv exellent ACRs.

Here comes the question is that the policy of my department (an autonomous body under Ministry of Education) can overlook seniority factor only on the basis of marks given in Interview.

Your advice is very much precious for me

Sanjeev

[The Great]

Dear Sanjib,
Actually I do not know the procedure followed by autonomy body. If they are provided with Administrative autonomy, then they can do ,what ever they like.

[The Great]

karira Sir,
I felt there is some negative remarks in my ACR 2003,which has not communicated to me.I am a state Govt.employee. Should I try to ask for a copy of the statement since 2003 till date under rti ?

[karira]

Originally Posted by The Great

karira Sir,
I felt there is some negative remarks in my ACR 2003,which has not communicated to me.I am a state Govt.employee. Should I try to ask for a copy of the statement since 2003 till date under rti ?

I read in this thread that if the ACR has negative remarks then the commenst have to be shown to the assessed person.
There are decisions of the Punjab and Orissa SIC's disclosing the ACR's to the person directly.
You can use RTI .