ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REPORT

A SEMINAR
SUBMITTED TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF LAWS, PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF LL.M – I SEMESTER
(COURSE: 2017-18)

SERVICE LAW

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

Dr. Nishtha Jaswal Chitralekha Katoch

Professor Roll No. 1241/17
Dr. Babita Pathania First Semester
Asst. Professor Constitution Group
Department of Laws LL.M (I Year)
Panjab University
Chandigarh
 Acknowledgement

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to acknowledge my deep debt of gratitude to my subject teachers Professor (Dr.) Nishtha
Jaswal and Assistant Professor (Dr.) Babita Devi Pathania, Department of Laws, Panjab
University, Chandigarh, for effectively guiding me through all the relevant concepts with utmost
patience and skill. I express my sincere gratitude to them, under whose able guidance I was able
to complete the task at hand both effectively and efficiently. I am immensely thankful for their
unfailing interest and support throughout.

I owe a great deal to my parents and I wish to take this occasion to thank them for their undying
efforts on me; to my mother, Mrs Anuradha Katoch, for her unconditional support throughout my
journey, and to my father, Col. Harish Katoch, without whom I would not have had the courage
nor the patience to successfully complete this task. I am eternally grateful to both of them.

Finally, I wish to thank the Library staff of the Department of Laws, Panjab University, for
making available all the necessary books and research material.

-Chitralekha Katoch

i
 Index

INDEX

1. TABLE OF CASES iii

2. INTRODUCTION 1

3. OBJECTIVES OF AN APAR 2

4. PREPARATION OF THE REPORT 7

5. PERIOD OF WRITING AN ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

REPORT (APAR) 9

6. ADVERSE ENTRIES AND THEIR COMMUNICATION 12

7. REPRESENTATION AGAINST THE ADVERSE REMARKS 16

8. CONCLUSION 17

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY v

ii
 Table of Cases

TABLE OF CASES

SR.
CASE NAME
NO CASE CITATION

Abhijeet Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and Ors 2009 (16) SCC 146

Amrik Singh v. Union of India (2001) 10 SCC 424

Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer AIR 2010 Delhi 21

Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1990) 2 SLR 461

Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725

LNINDORD 2016 CATND

Dr. Ashok Kumar v. The Director General and others
2025

Dr.Anita Yadav v. Union of India and others LNINDORD 2016 CATND

2679
Inspector Raj Singh v. GNCT of Delhi and others LNINDORD 2017 CATND
1539
Kantilal G. Shah v. State of Gujarat (1984) 3 SLR 322

Mohinder Singh Dhillon v. Ganga Dhar Sharma (1975) 2 SLR 603

R.C. Malik v. Union of India (1983) 1 SLR 139

R.K. Jain v. Union of India (2013) 14 SCC 794

R.K. Nafria v. UOI & Others LNIND 2012 CATND 493

Rajiinder Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs and others v.

Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 10 SCC 1.
Rohit Kumar Parmar v. Union of India and Ors
OA 3410/2010
S.L. Chhabra (Air Vice Marshal) v. Union of India (1993) Supp 4 SCC 441

S.T. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka AIR 2007 SC 1262

iii
 Table of Cases

Satya Narain Shukla v. Union of India & Ors 2006 (9) SCC 69

State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher AIR 1996 SC 1328

State of Gujrat and Anr. v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah 1999 (1) SCC 529

State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra AIR 1997 SC 3671

Tushar Ranjan Mohanty v. Union of India through The LNINDORD 2015 CATND
Chief Statistician of India and Secretary and others 2812
Union of India v. Major Bahadur Singh (2006) 1 SCC 368

iv
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

INTRODUCTION

The Government Services in the country are in a dismal state. The problem of administration has
added to the difficulties of the country. All along the line, administration has deteriorated – at the
Centre, in the States, and even in the lower rungs of the governmental set up. Toning up would
have to be done, new procedures might have to be evolved, and even fresh recruitment at all
levels would have to be considered.1

An Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) provides the basic and vital inputs for
assessing the performance of an officer and his/her advancement in his/her career and also for
judging his/her fitness for promotion, confirmation, transfer, posting, encouragement, caution
etc. An APAR provides an opportunity to assess the potential of an officer and gives him/her
appropriate feedback and guidance for correcting his/her deficiencies and improving
performance.

In exercise of the powers under the All India Services Act, 1951 (Section 3) and in supersession
of the All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970, the Central Government, after
consultation with the State Governments formulated the Rules of 2007 namely, The All India
Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007.

As stated under Section 5 of the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007,

‘A performance appraisal report assessing the performance, character, conduct and

qualities of every member of the Service shall be written for each financial year or as may be
specified by the Government in the Schedule 2.’

The purpose of writing of annual confidential report/annual performance appraisal report, and
also the scope of interference in exercise of the power of judicial review have been reiterated in
Rajiinder Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs and others v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi)
and others2, where the Hon ble Supreme Court has held thus:

„Writing the confidential report is primarily and essentially an administrative function.

Normally tribunals/courts are loath to interfere in cases of complaints against adverse remarks
1
http://arc.gov.in/10th/ARC_10thReport_preface_contents.pdf.
2
(2011) 10 SCC 1.

-1-
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

and to substitute their own judgment for that of the reporting or reviewing officers. It is because
these officers alone are best suited to judge the qualities of officials working under them and
about their competence in the performance of official duties entrusted to them. Despite fear of
abuse of power by prejudiced superior officers in certain cases, the service record contained in
the confidential reports, by and large, reflects the real personality of the officer.‟3

OBJECTIVES OF AN APAR

The reports provide the basic and vital inputs for assessing the performance of an officer and his
advancement in his career as also to serve the data for judging his comparative merits for
confirmation, promotion, selection grade, crossing efficiency bar, continuance in service beyond
certain age or completion of certain number of years in service.

In State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher4, the Court laid down that the objective of writing
confidential report is two-fold, i.e. to give an opportunity to the officer to improve his work and
remove deficiencies and to inculcate discipline. Secondly, it seeks to serve improvement of
quality and excellence and efficiency of public service.

Past record of performance of an employee will normally be a useful indicator of his future
efficiency. And since suitability for discharging the responsibility of the promotional post is the
real objective of the employer, past record of the employee constitutes a significant relevant
factor in considering whether he is fit for promotion. The assessment of past performance is done
on the basis of the service record of the concerned employee.

If the performance of the employees are recorded in two different types of reports (e.g. annual
confidential reports and assignment appraisal reports) the authorities concerned have, as of
necessity, to consider both and evaluate them. The mere fact that two different types of reports
were considered cannot amount to discrimination. Even a single adverse remark within the
period of consideration followed in subsequent years by good remarks and even categorization as
outstanding may be a valid ground for withholding promotions and the court cannot examine the
correctness of such a remark.5

3
See Dr.Anita Yadav v. Union of India and others, LNINDORD 2016 CATND 2679.
4
AIR 1996 SC 1328.
5
Amrik Singh v. Union of India, (2001) 10 SCC 424.

-2-
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

The objectives of performance appraisal in respect of the All India Services have been spelt out
as follows:
 “To provide basic and vital input for assessing the performance of an officer and for
his/her advancement in his/her career”
 “To be used as a tool for human resource development so that an officer realizes his/her
time potential”.

Similarly, in the case of the Indian Army the objectives have been spelt out as follows:

“To have an objective assessment of an officer‟s competence, employability and potential,

primarily for organizational requirements”.6

As to the object and method of recording character roll entries, the Supreme Court of India in
State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra7 stated that the confidential reports (read APAR) and
entries in the character rolls are made to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve his
performance. The officer entrusted with the duty to write confidential reports, has a public
responsibility and trust to write the confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately
while giving, as accurately as possible, the statement of facts on an overall assessment of the
performance of the subordinate officer. These should be founded upon facts or circumstances.
The conduct, reputation and character acquire public knowledge or notoriety and may be within
his knowledge. Before forming an opinion, the reporting officers writing confidentials should
share the information which is not a part of the record with the officer. This would be sufficient
opportunity to an officer to correct the errors of the judgment, conduct, behaviour, integrity or
conduct proclivity. If, an officer who fails to perform the duty, correct his conduct or improve
himself, necessarily the same may be recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof
supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an opportunity to know the remarks made
against him.

In the judgment of the Apex Court in S.T. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka8 it was held as under:

"The confidential report is an important document as it provides the basic and vital inputs
for assessing the performance of an officer and further achievements in his career. This Court has

6
http://dopt.gov.in/committeereports/objectives-performance-appraisal
7
State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra, AIR 1997 SC 3671, Also See U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain,
(1996) 2 SCC 363.
8
AIR 2007 SC 1262.

-3-
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

held that the performance appraisal through C.Rs. should be used as a tool for human resource
development and is not to be used as a fault finding process but a developmental one. Except for
the impugned adverse remarks for a short period of about 150 days, the performance of the
appellant has been consistently of high quality with various achievements and prestigious
postings and meritorious awards from the President of India. We have already seen that the
appellant has been graded as "very good", "excellent" and "outstanding" throughout his career. It
is difficult to appreciate as to how it could become adverse during the period of 150 days for
which the adverse remarks were made. Furthermore, despite such adverse remarks, the
Government of Karnataka, considering his merit and ability and outstanding qualities, has
already promoted the appellant as the Inspector General of Police."

The Supreme Court has held in their judgment in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India9 that the
object of writing the confidential report and making entries is to give an opportunity to the public
servant to improve the performance.

The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission in their 10th Report10 has also
recommended that the performance appraisal system for all services be made more consultative
and transparent on the lines of the PAR of the All India Services. Keeping in view the above
position, the matter regarding communication of entries in the ACRs in the case of civil services
under the Government of India has been further reviewed and the undersigned is directed to
convey the following decisions of the Government:
1. The existing nomenclature of the Annual Confidential Report will be modified as Annual
Performance Assessment Report (APAR).
2. The full APAR including the overall grade and assessment of integrity shall be
communicated to the concerned officer after the Report is complete with the remarks of
the Reviewing Officer and the Accepting Authority11 wherever such system is in vogue.
Where Government servant has only one supervisory level above him as in the case of

9
(2008) 8 SCC 725.
10
Tenth Report, Second Administrative Reforms Commission, Government of India, November 2008,
http://arc.gov.in/10th/ARC_10th_report.htm.
11
Means the authority which supervises the performance of the reviewing authority as may be specifically
empowered in this behalf by the Government, Section 2 (a) of The All India Services (Performance Appraisal
Report) Rules, 2007.

-4-
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

personal staff attached to officers, such communication shall be made after the reporting
officer has completed the performance assessment.
3. The Section entrusted with the maintenance of APARs after its receipt shall disclose the
same to the officer reported upon. The concerned officer shall be given the opportunity to
make any representation against the entries and the final grading given in the Report
within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the entries in the APAR.
4. The representation shall be restricted to the specific factual observations contained in the
report leading to assessment of the officer in terms of attributes, work output etc. While
communicating the entries, it shall be made clear that in case no representation is
received within the fifteen days, it shall be deemed that he/she has no representation to
make. If the concerned APAR Section does not receive any information from the
concerned officer on or before fifteen days from the date of disclosure, the APAR will be
treated as final.
5. The competent authority for considering adverse remarks under the existing instructions
may consider the representation, if necessary, in consultation with the reporting and/or
reviewing officer and shall decide the matter objectively based on the material placed
before him within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the representation.
6. The competent authority after due consideration may reject the representation or may
accept and modify the APAR accordingly. The decision of the competent authority and
the final grading shall be communicated to the officer reported upon within fifteen days
of receipt of the decision of the competent authority by the concerned APAR Section.12

It is the duty of every reporting officer to be conscious of the fact that it is his duty not only to
make an objective assessment of his subordinates‟ work and qualities, but also to see if he gives
his subordinates at all times the advice, guidance and assistance to correct their flaws, faults and
deficiencies. If this part of the reporting officers‟ duty has been properly performed there should
be no difficulty about recording adverse entries because they would only refer to the defects
which have persisted in spite of reporting officer‟s efforts to have them corrected.

12
R.K. Nafria v. UOI & Others, LNIND 2012 CATND 493; Also See Section 9 of the All India Services
(Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007.

-5-
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

If after having taken such care, the reporting officer finds that for the purpose of truly
objective assessment, mention should be made of any warning, admonition etc. issued, especially
those which have not produced the desired improvement, it is his right and duty to mention them.
In the process of bringing the defects to the notice of the person concerned, where an explanation
is possible an opportunity to do so should be given.

In Rohit Kumar Parmar v. Union of India and Or13s., the record of the applicant had been „Very
Good‟ for six years out of the eight years, the rejection of his representation was without proper
application of mind. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
„Having considered the rival contentions, we are of the considered opinion that the
process of recording of ACRs, rejection of representations against below benchmark grading and
their consideration by the DPC suffer from several infirmities. The record of the Applicant has
been `Very Good' in six years out of the eight years for which ACRs have been recorded
between 1999-2000 to 2008-09. These ACRs of the two years have been recorded after
considerable delay, as discussed above, contrary to the repeated instructions, which provide a
time limit of one month. It is reasonable to expect that with highly taxing load of work and need
to record on a large number of ACRs, the impressions about the work of an individual officer
would get blurred with passage of time and eventually get obliterated. Reporting and reviewing
after a lapse of more than two years can result in unjust assessment of an officer. Further, the
report has been communicated almost five years after it was recorded. The reviewing officer has
retired on superannuation. This should have been sufficient reason for ignoring the ACR.
However, the competent authority proceeds to reject the representation only on the comments of
the reporting officer, which only reiterate that he would stick by the grading given by him to the
officer reported upon. The reporting officer has not answered the points raised in the
representation of the Applicant. The representation has not been examined at all by the officials
who submitted the relevant file to the Defence Secretary, who perfunctorily records that he saw
no reason to intervene in the assessment made by the reporting and reviewing authority,
apparently without knowing anything about the Applicant's representation. The Applicant has
been treated unjustly. The rejection of his representation has been without proper application of
mind.‟

13
OA 3410/2010, decided on 30.03.2011.

-6-
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

In Abhijeet Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and Ors14., because the petitioner therein had
already retired, the Apex Court directed the Respondents to altogether ignore the below
benchmark ACRs and consider his ACRs for the preceding year which were up to the
benchmark.

It is a settled law that the object of making adverse remarks is to assess the competence of an
officer on merits and performance of an officer concerned so as to grade him in various
categories as outstanding, very good, good, satisfactory and average, etc. The competent
authority and the reviewing authority15 have to act fairly or objectively in assessing the character,
integrity and performance of the incumbent.

PREPARATION OF THE REPORT

The Government has introduced a two-tier system of reporting to minimize the operation of the
subjective human element and of conscious/unconscious bias in reporting. The report is prepared
by the Reporting Officer which is further reviewed by the next authority in line- Reviewing
Officer.
No Reporting Officer should record his remarks in the confidential report regarding an
official under him unless he has seen his work and conduct for at least three months. If the
Officer has served under the Reporting Officer for less than three months, then the opinion of the
officer under whom he previously served for at least three months should be obtained. The duty
of the Reviewing Authority is to see the work and conduct of employee for at least three
months.16 If he has not seen the work and conduct of the said employee for a minimum period of
three months, then he is to make necessary inquiry to make himself aware of work and conduct
of the employee concerned. He will record his agreement and disagreement with respect to
adverse remarks recorded. If he is showing his agreement with respect to the adverse remarks, he
is to give reasons to support such adverse remarks. The remarks are not to be recorded if reasons
to support the same are not put up.

14
2009 (16) SCC 146.
15
Means such authority or authorities supervising the performance of the reporting authority as may be specifically
empowered in this behalf by the Government, Section 2 (k) of the All India Services (Performance Appraisal
Report) Rules, 2007.
16
Section 6, the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007.

-7-
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

A confidential report shall also be written when either the Reporting Officer or the
employee reported upon relinquishes charge of the post and, in such a case it shall be written
within two months of the relinquishment of his charge of the post.17 If an officer wishes to record
his remarks either on account of his own transfer or because of the transfer of the subordinate in
the middle of the year, there is no objection to his doing so and he may be supplied blank forms
for the purpose if he asks for these but these remarks should not be taken into consideration for
any purpose, whatsoever, except at the end of the year, or any other reporting period prescribed.
Such a report will however, be possessed in the same manner as other normal report.
In the light of the suggestions from the Central Vigilance Commission, it has been stated
that no Officer under Suspension should be allowed to write or review the Annual Confidential
Reports on his subordinates, if during the major part of writing or reviewing he is under
suspension, as he might not have full opportunity to supervise the work of his subordinates.

In the case of Inspector Raj Singh v. GNCT of Delhi and others, it was stated that, “It is for the
authorities to assess the overall performance of an employee. Unless, the action or the order
questioned is shown to be passed against the facts on record or in violation of the principles of
natural justice or any rule, this Tribunal cannot interfere with the same. The applicant failed to
show any such valid reason in support of his case.”18

Confidential reports written and submitted by the officer of the same cadre and adopted without
any independent scrutiny and assessment by the committee were held to be illegal. When an
officer makes the remarks he must eschew making vague remarks causing jeopardy to the service
of the subordinate officer. He must bestow careful attention to collect all correct and truthful
information and give necessary particulars when he seeks to make adverse remarks against the
subordinate officer whose career prospect and service were in jeopardy. It would be salutary that
the controlling officer before writing adverse remarks would give prior sufficient opportunity in
writing by informing him of the deficiency he noticed for improvement. In spite of the
opportunity given if the officer/employee does not improve then it would be an obvious fact and
would form material basis in support of the adverse remarks.

17
Section 5, the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007.
18
LNINDORD 2017 CATND 1539.

-8-
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

It was held in the case of Dr. Ashok Kumar v. The Director General and others19 that the
contention of the applicant regarding the then DG, about him seeing the work only for 7 months
in the relevant reporting period year and not being able to record the adverse remarks when the
APAR was put up to him as the Accepting Authority stands rejected by the court.
“It has been clearly laid down that any Reporting, Reviewing or Accepting Authority,
who has seen and observed the work of an Officer/Scientist for a minimum period of at least 90
days in the relevant reporting period year, is competent to record remarks as such Reporting,
Reviewing or Accepting Authority. Therefore, the then DG, having observed the work of the
applicant for 7 months, was fully competent to record the observations which he did.”

The performance and conduct of an officer as evaluated and remarks already given by his/her
superior officers in the APAR for the preceding year/years cannot be held to have any bearing on
the assessment of his/her performance and the remarks given by the superior officers in the
APAR for the following year, especially when enough testimony justifying the remarks so given
is available on record.20

PERIOD OF WRITING AN ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REPORT

Supervisory officer should maintain a confidential diary in which instances which creates
suspicion about the integrity of a subordinate should be noted from time to time and action to
verify the truth of such suspicion should be taken expeditiously by making confidential enquiries
departmentally.

APAR is written for a period of one year i.e. from April to March. It should be written
within one month of the expiry of the report period. It should be written as soon as possible but
not later than six weeks thereafter. There may be instances where more than one APAR is
written, like the transfer of an official reported upon or Reporting Officer/Reviewing Officer
during the course of any APAR year.
An officer under suspension should not be allowed to write or review the ACRs of his
subordinates, if during major part of the writing or reviewing he is under suspension, as he might
not have full opportunity to supervise the work of his subordinates.

19
LNINDORD 2016 CATND 2025.
20
Dr.Anita Yadav v. Union of India and others, LNINDORD 2016 CATND 2679.

-9-
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

The accepting authority shall within the timeframe specified in Schedule 2, record his remarks
on the performance appraisal report and may accept it, with such modifications as may be
considered necessary, and countersign the report.21 There is no administrative law enacted to deal
with the recording of remarks in the report. But certain principles which are evolved by Courts
from case to case are required to be observed by the Reporting Officer while recording remarks
in the APAR:

1. APAR should necessarily be prepared scrupulously and carefully.

2. It should be based on established facts.
3. The name of the Official reported upon should be clearly written on top right hand corner
of each page of the APAR form.
4. The report should be based on an objective assessment of the work.
5. It should be written with the greatest possible care. Slightest default or negligence on the
part of the Reporting Officer may lead to grave injustice to the officer reported upon.
6. The Reporting Officer should not be in a hurry to write the report on all the officers
working under him. The remarks must be well thought of and explanatory.
7. Whether the Official concerned is punctual and has maintained discipline must be
mentioned in the report.
8. No APAR should be initiated and reviewed by the same officer(s) of the same rank and
designation.
9. The forms of confidential reports have been devised with a view to ensuring maximum
objectivity in the preparation of the report. In filling up the forms, tick marks and dashes
should not be used. Reporting and Reviewing Officers should indicate their opinion by
writing out in full the appropriate alternatives which best describe the officer‟s qualities.
10. The copy of the warning which is not the direct outcome of report is not to be placed on
the personal file without the previous approval of the appointing authority.
11. Letters of appreciation issued by various authorities or persons on any major event of
work done or special contribution made by the officer towards the implementation of a

21
Section 7, the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007.

- 10 -
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

particular scheme or successful conclusion of special campaign must be mentioned in the

report.22

It was held in the case of R.K. Tanwar v. UOI & Ors23., If the competent authority deems it
appropriate to upgrade the Performance Appraisal Reports of the petitioner for the relevant years
and arrives at a conclusion that he was fit for appointment to the post of General Manager at the
relevant point in time, then having regard to the fact that the petitioner had superannuated in the
year 2012, his case would be considered for retrospective promotion to the subject post and if
promoted, he would be entitled to claim the monetary benefits of arrears of pay and other retiral
benefits along with interest calculated @ 9% p.a., from the year 2000, when he was admittedly
promoted to the post of General Manager, as per the rules.

Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides exemption from disclosure of
information. Under clause (j) of Section 8(1), it is stated that there shall be no obligation to give
any citizen information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the
privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies
the disclosure of the information.

In Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer24, the learned Single Judge while
observing that except in cases involving overriding public interest, the ACR record of an officer
cannot be disclosed to any person other than the person himself, remanded the matter to the
Central Information Commission for considering the issue whether, in the larger public interest,
the information sought by the appellant could be disclosed. It was observed that if the CIC comes
to the conclusion that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought by
the appellant, the CIC would follow the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the Act
(intimate within five days from receipt of the request).

22
DR. BABITA DEVI PATHANIA, SERVICE LAWS IN INDIA (New Era Law Publications, First ed. 2016, p. 131-132).
23
LNIND 2014 DEL 5722.
24
AIR 2010 Delhi 216.

- 11 -
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

A similar judgment was laid down in R.K. Jain v. Union of India25 where the Supreme Court held
that the ACR is personal information and so cannot be disclosed to third party except in cases
involving overriding public interest.

ADVERSE ENTRIES AND THEIR COMMUNICATION

In the course of his service career an employee's performance and conduct are periodically
appraised by the appropriate authority and the result is recorded in what are commonly called
'Confidential Character Rolls' or CCR. An entry (or remark) in the CCR which pertains to
deficiency in performance or conduct is termed as an 'adverse entry'. The authority considering
the candidature for promotion can legitimately decide to withhold promotion on the basis of such
adverse entry depending, of course, on how adverse is the entry. But promotion cannot be
withheld merely because there were certain adverse remarks on record and particularly when no
enquiry was made and no findings were given.26
Whether an entry is adverse or not, depends upon its actual impact it has on employee‟s
career and not on its terminology. Thus, even a „good‟ entry can be adverse in the context of
eligibility for promotion.27

In State of Gujrat and Anr. v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah28 it was held:

"Purpose of adverse entries is primarily to forewarn the Government servant to mend his
ways and to improve his performance. That is why, it is required to communicate the adverse
entries so that the Government servant to whom the adverse entry is given, may have either
opportunity to explain his conduct so as to show that the adverse entry was wholly uncalled for,
or to silently brood over the matter and on being convinced that his previous conduct justified
such an entry, to improve his performance"
The grievance of the writ petitioner was that adverse remarks in his annual confidential
reports for 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 because of which he was not empanelled for promotion,
had not been communicated to him. The High Court quashed the annual confidential report
holding that in the absence of parameters specified for assessment, allotment of seven marks for

25
(2013) 14 SCC 794.
26
Shambhu Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 431.
27
Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725.
28
1999 (1) SCC 529.

- 12 -
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

1988-1989 and six marks for 1989-1990 amounted to downgrading, which had an elements of
adverse reflection leading to denial of promotion and hence the same ought to have been
communicated to him. The absence of parameters for assessment was not specifically highlighted
in the writ petition. The paper circulated on the selection system stipulated that assessment of
three or less marks in any personal quality or the aspect of demonstrated performance was to be
considered to be adverse and in such cases verbal and written guidelines for improvement were
required to be given. Another para of the instructions provided that annual confidential reports
would not be communicated to the officer, except in the contingencies stipulated therein. The
further instruction clearly indicated that only when an officer failed to show the desired
improvement, adverse or advisory remarks were to be included in his confidential records so that
cognizance was taken of his weakness while planning his future placements. The Supreme Court
of India was of the view that the High Court clearly overlooked these aspects and the matter was
remitted to High Court for re-hearing officers grievances in the background of existing
parameters.29

An adverse remark is not a defamatory remark in law and cannot form the subject-matter of any
defamation proceedings.30 Where the entry is a downgrading entry like from „outstanding‟ in a
particular year to a „satisfactory‟ entry in the succeeding year it could be considered as adverse,31
same would be position where the remark was „poor‟; after being consistently „good‟ throughout
the career.32

Some instances of adverse remarks are as under-

(i) The remark „not yet fit for confirmation‟ is an adverse remark.33
(ii) Remarks to the effect that his relation with his colleagues and particularly the public
requires improvement are adverse remarks.34
(iii) Remark to the effect that there were complaints of drinking is an adverse remark.35

29
Union of India v. Major Bahadur Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 368.
30
Mohinder Singh Dhillon v. Ganga Dhar Sharma, (1975) 2 SLR 603.
31
U.P. Jal Nigam v. Probhat Chandra Jain, (1996) 2 SCC 363.
32
Kantilal G. Shah v. State of Gujarat, (1984) 3 SLR 322.
33
R.C. Malik v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SLR 139.
34
C. Dinakar v. State of Karnataka, (1984) 3 SLR 726.
35
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1990) 2 SLR 461.

- 13 -
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

(iv) A remark to the effect that the officer is constantly trying to get round his superior, by
sweet talk/visits/gifts, to get what he wants, by way of good report, postings, courses,
decoration etc. is an adverse remark especially in the context that the same was made in
relation to an officer in the Indian Air Force.36

An adverse entry cannot be considered in isolation or by ignoring the extent of prejudicial

qualitative content of the remark. The general principle is that although the entire service record
of the employee is to be considered, the service records of the immediately preceding ten years
should provide a just and reasonable guideline. A consideration exceeding last ten years would
tantamount to digging up the past to get some material for taking action.37

An employee when superseded on the ground of adverse remarks in his confidential report,
cannot call it as discriminatory merely because such remarks had not been communicated to the
employee, unless there was an intentional or purposeful discrimination.

Where the relevant guidelines required that the last three years "Annual Performance Appraisal
Report" was to be considered for adjudging suitability but such reports had not been prepared for
quite a few years, the authorities would be entitled to consider the reports of the three preceding
available years since that would amount to due compliance of the guidelines.

In Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Ors38, the significant question in law involved in the case was
whether non-communication of entry in Annual Confidential Report of a public servant on the
pretext of any Government Order or memorandum amounts to arbitrariness and violative of
natural justice. Any adverse entry which is not communicated to the employee or if he is denied
the opportunity of making representation on it to the superior authority, then it cannot be the
basis for withholding of promotion. This is because adverse entry by itself is not a punishment
but its purpose is to apprise the employee of shortcomings so that he might improve his
performance and unless he is told what the shortcomings are such adverse entries are of no legal
significance.

36
S.L. Chhabra (Air Vice Marshal) v. Union of India, (1993) Supp 4 SCC 441.
37
Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948.
38
(2008) 8 SCC 725.

- 14 -
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

In the case of Tushar Ranjan Mohanty v. Union of India through The Chief Statistician of India
and Secretary and others39 it was stated:
“In our opinion every entry must be communicated to the employee concerned, so that he
may have an opportunity of making a representation against it if he is aggrieved. It flows from
extension of the principles of natural justice that before an adverse APAR is recorded, the
concerned employee is required to be called and cautioned since the very purpose of writing
APAR is to bring about improvement in the performance of the officer reported upon. This, as
we have already noted, is not found to have taken place in respect of the applicant. The question
may now arise as to whether the word caution is confined only to the reporting authority or it
shall apply equally to the reviewing and accepting authorities as well. To our mind, since both
the reviewing and accepting authorities are recording APAR of the officer reported upon and the
APAR having civil consequences for such officer, they are in a position to observe the
performance of the officer. Therefore, it was all the more necessary to deliver caution to the
applicant to improve upon his conduct in whatever manner he may deem fit. Of course, it goes
without saying that this need not be a recordable warning since it would amount to punishment
for which different procedures are to be followed.”40

In Satya Narain Shukla v. Union of India & Ors41., it was held and observed as follows:

"The appellant also argued that the remarks made in the ACR were not communicated to
him. It was also urged by the appellant that this Court should direct the authorities to streamline
the whole procedure so that even remarks like "good" or "very good" made in ACRs should be
made compulsorily communicable to the officers concerned so that an officer may not lose his
chance of empanelment at a subsequent point of his service. In our view, it is not our function to
issue such directions. It is for the Government to consider how to streamline the procedure for
selection. We can only examine if the procedure for selection as adopted by the Government in
unconstitutional or otherwise illegal or vitiated by arbitrariness and mala fides."

39
LNINDORD 2015 CATND 2812.
40
Tushar Ranjan Mohanty v. Union of India through The Chief Statistician of India and Secretary and others,
LNINDORD 2015 CATND 2812.
41
2006 (9) SCC 69 (81).

- 15 -
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

REPRESENTATION AGAINST THE ADVERSE REMARKS

The Official reported upon has a right to make representation against adverse remarks recorded
in the APAR. Only one representation against adverse remarks should be allowed. Time period
for making representation is fifteen days from the date of communication of adverse remarks. If
there exists any delay in making such representation, the delay may be condoned if the authority
is satisfied by the reasons or explanation provided by the Official.

The representation may be addressed directly to the Authority conveying the remarks or
to the Reporting Officer or to an authority immediately superior to the countersigning authority,
if any. If such a superior had already reviewed the report in question and also expressed their
views, either by agreeing or disagreeing with the said remarks in question, then the
representation lies to the next higher authority in line.

It must be kept in mind that before the final order is passed on any representation, the comments
of the reporting authority or authorities should invariably be obtained. Representation submitted
by an official is to be considered by the highest authority. The highest administrative authority
should be the only authority to take the final decision, whether to reject or accept the
representation against the adverse remarks.
The representation against the remarks must be decided by the competent authority
within three months from the date of submission of the representation. If the Authority reviewing
the remarks feels that there is no sufficient ground for interference, the representation should be
rejected and the Official concerned must be informed of the same. If, however, the Authority is
of the view that the remarks should be altered or toned down, it should make necessary entries
separately with proper attention. If the remarks are ordered to be expunged, they should be
effectively obliterated both in the confidential report as well as in the copy of the letter
communicating those remarks.
Where the penalty is modified, the entry in the confidential report originally made on the basis of
the penalty awarded, should also be modified accordingly. In a case where the Authority comes
to the conclusion that the remarks deserve expunction and that after such expunction the relevant
column would be left blank, it should order modification of the relevant remarks in a suitable
manner so that the column is not allowed to remain blank.

- 16 -
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

CONCLUSION

There are perceived weakness related to realization of the objective of APAR. The present
system of appraisal is not based on monitorable inputs. Adverse remarks are rarely given due to
the hassles of having to defend such remarks subsequently. Even advisory remarks are not
recorded for fear that they would be construed as adverse remarks and will need to be
subsequently defended. There is considerable delay in the writing of ACRs, even though there
are instructions regarding cut off dates for this purpose. In many cases, ACRs of several years
are written together. As a result, objectivity of the assessment is suspect and promotions often
get delayed.
In cases of promotion as well, adverse remarks are rarely given due to the hassles of
having to defend such remarks subsequently. In the State governments the ACR is rarely used, as
an officer is better known through his general reputation. There is an acute problem of a very
large proportion of the officers being graded as very good or outstanding. This makes it very
difficult to identify the really outstanding officers.42 The result of such a laid back attitude in
assessing the performances of the officers, the core professional competency is not evaluated
adequately. There is no focus on exceptional work accomplished or manifestly revealed
incompetence. There is also no provision for recognition of innovation and creativity.

The focus of the services in India is on process-regulation: compliance with centrally prescribed
standards and rules; in other words, how things should be done and how inputs should be
aligned. With such focus on processes, systems in government are oriented towards input usage-
how much resources, staff and facilities are deployed in a scheme, programme or project and
whether such deployment is in accordance with rules and regulations. The main performance
measure thus is the amount of money spent and the success of the schemes, programmes and
projects is generally evaluated in terms of the inputs consumed. While such an approach satisfies
the considerations of economy of inputs and compliance with process regulation, it fails to
indicate what are the results achieved by the activities of government in general and deployment
of public funds in particular.

42
http://dopt.gov.in/committeereports/objectives-performance-appraisal

- 17 -
 Annual Performance Appraisal Report

Performance management as it exists in government includes conventional tools like the

budgetary exercise, annual reports published by the Ministries/Departments, performance
budgets and the recently introduced outcome budget. Ministries and departments of government
have varying practices of periodically reviewing their organizational performance. In addition,
special studies are also commissioned from time to time. These are the basic requirements of a
performance management system and much more is required to be done.

Confusion still prevails among civil servants regarding what is good performance and the level
of performance expected from them, by their department, superiors, and the public. The system
is affected by unclear performance standards, possible bias on the part of superiors, political
influence, etc. Performance appraisal becomes meaningless in certain cases where the job fi t is
ignored while posting an officer, and where there are frequent transfers.

At the same time, perceived clash between an individual‟s career goals and
organizational goals further compounds the situation. The system of deciding on representations
against an adverse entry sometimes take so long that reporting officers avoid giving an adverse
entry. Many a time, for want of evidence against the reported civil servant, the reporting officer
is in a defensive position and thus unable to justify his/her adverse remarks.

What is presently required is thus, to look into the execution of the appraisal system and a need
for a joint review of the remarks. The report should be made in time and more within fixed
periodicals. A system of performance related pay must be incorporated to increase efficiency.
The remarks must be substantive and supportive of change. Under the present Appraisal system,
the reports are not disclosed to the officer reported upon, except for adverse remarks. This
reduces its effectiveness as a tool for performance management. To strengthen both, individual
effectiveness and organizational effectiveness, it is essential that individuals are suitably
empowered, however authority and accountability should be commensurate with each other.
Such checks and balances would improve the effectiveness of the performance management
system.

- 18 -
 Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS
 DR. BABITA DEVI PATHANIA, SERVICE LAWS IN INDIA (New Era Law Publications, First
ed. 2016).
 G. B. SINGH, HAND BOOK FOR DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITIES (10th ed. 2012)
 NARENDRA KUMAR, LAW RELATING TO GOVERNMENT SERVANTS AND MANAGEMENT OF
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (4TH ed. 2017)

WEBSITES
 http://arc.gov.in/10th/ARC_10thReport_preface_contents.pdf.
 http://dopt.gov.in/committeereports/objectives-performance-appraisal