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

[kushal]

What is contained in confidential reports is undoubtedly ‘personal information’ about that employee. The ACRs are protected from disclosure because arguably such disclosure seriously harm interpersonal relationship in a given organization. Further, the ACR notings represent an interaction based on trust and confidence between the officers involved in initiating, reviewing or accepting the ACRs. These officers could be seriously embarrassed and even compromised if their notings are made public. There are, thus, reasonable grounds to protect all such information through a proper classification under the Official Secrets Act.

Appeal No.128/ICPB/2006
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19.

[crusader]

It must have been vested interest in officers to get their information. Why on earth, in the first place would somebody ask for this information?

May it's democracy, as stingojournal said in one post

[milinduw]

I think the Annual Confidential Report should come under RTI. Employee will be protected against any kind of partiality while promoting the one amongst the lot.

[brijeshbhatt]

If our Officers do their Job honestly and efficiently, they will not need to know about their ACR.

[kushal]

Even though I personally feel that ACR should remain as Official Secret, but let's see how many vote for this as I may have a skewed opinion because of being in Government.
I have opened a voting for this thread.

[bombaygirl]

Hi,
I agree with Milinduw completely. Some transperancy is needed so that better officials are promoted not relatives of the current top officers. In fact at some level of crucial officers should be voted by the citizens of the city/town itself, like they have in Europe.

Dhara

[ganpat1956]

No doubt the ACR contains personal information of a sensitive nature about the employee and bringing out such matters under RTI is sure to cause a lot of embarassment to the person concerned.

But if objectivity and impartiality are lacking on the part of the officer who compiles such ACRs on persons who are working under him, what else is the remedy available to subordinates who are affected.

I do not think that this question can be merely settled through a simple process of voting "yes or no". This requires a careful analysis of the pros and cons.

[maneesh]

I agree with Ganpat,
The issue is not as simple as disclosing or retaining information.
The dimension of the move has manifold effect. One immediate is the number of litigation in Central Administrative Tribunal will increase.
I am all for a careful analysis of the issue before taking a call.

[NRUSINGH]

While details of notings on the ACR should not be disclosed as the same can cause embarassment to the Reporting or Reviewing officers, it should be open to a Govt servant to know what final evaluation has been given to him or her!

when one does not know what evaluation has been made in his ACR, how can a person try to improve his standards!

Moreover, he has the right to know as to whether he can expect to get his promotion in the DPC.

Hence, the final evaluation must be made public.

I have a feeling, many officers in the Govt departments may be knowing what remarks they have got! (though illegally)But, when one does not know about it, one has to spend sleepless nights -thinking if one will get promoted! if one can get the desired deputation! and so on..

[kushal]

As is the case, any adverse remark is invariably communicated to the concerned officials.

Some relevant post: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/3159-post11.html

The Rule says any adverse grade or any adverse remark even with good grade need to be communicated to the officer concerned.

DoPT has dissolved any super session based on good ACR, and introduced the minimum benchmark for all to get promoted. Thus if one's ACR has 5 good and another has 5 outstanding, the level remains the same.

Further for example, a particular promotion requires a minimum grading of 'GOOD', and one officer gets 5 'Good', another gets 5 'outstanding', and the last one gets 1 Average and 4 'Outsanding'; the first 2 will both get promotion without break in seniority and the 3rd one will not get promotion.

But as you can see, the 'average' grading need to be communicated to officer concerned, it is but clear that he has ample time to represent and know his fault and correct and represent thereof.

However, I in one case, agree that is 'deputation', which is primarily driven by so to say .... "outstanding".