APAR DoP&T orders 19.06.2011, 13.04.2010, 23.07.2009

APAR DoP&T orders 19.06.2011, 13.04.2010, 23.07.2009

No.21011/ 1 / 2005 – Estt. A ( Pt. III )

Government of lndia

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions

(Department of Personnel &.Training)

North Block, New Delhi

Dated the 19^th May, 2011

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Maintenance and preparation of Annual Performance Appraisal reports communication of all entries for fairness and transparency in public administration.

The undersigned is directed to draw attention of the Ministries / Departments to this Department’s OM No.21011 / 1 / 2005-Estt.(A. Pt. II) dated 14.5.2009 by which the system of communicating the entries in the APAR from the  reporting period 2008-09 onwards for representation if any was introduced. The Competent Authority to consider the representation shall decide the matter objectively based on the material placed before him within a period of 30 days from the date of (the receipt of the representation. The Competent Authority after due consideration may reject the representation or may accept or modify the APAR accordingly. In this Department's OM of even number dated 13.4.2010, it was further decided that if an employee is to be considered for promotion in a future DPC and his ACRs prior to the period 2008-09 which would be reckonable for assessment of his fitness in such future DPCs contain final grading which are below the benchmark for his next promotion, before such ACRs are placed before the DPC, the concerned employee will be given a copy of the relevant ACR for his representation, if any, within 15 days of such communication. It may be noted that only below benchmark ACR for the period relevant to promotion need be sent. This OM dated 13.4.2010 specifically provided that in case of upgradation of the final grading given in the APAR, specific reasons therefore may also be given in the order of the Competent Authority. Since the provisions of the above OM dated 13.4.2010 are applicable only for future DPCs where the recommendations will be implemented prospectively from the date of assuming charge of the higher appointment, the provisions will not be applicable to retired officers.

2. The UPSC has brought to the notice of this Department that in the DPCs being-held under the aegis of the Commission, orders of the Competent Authority do not contain specific reasons for such upgradation in a number of cases. Such orders cannot be termed as disposed off in a quasi-judicial manner as laid down in the aforesaid OM dated 13.4.2010. Grading an officer below the bench mark by the DPC in such cases on the ground of upgradation being without giving sufficient reasons is prone to avoidable representations.

3. In order that the DPC proceedings are held on schedule and without any necessity to over look the decisions given by the Competent Authority while upgrading the grading in the APAR without specific reasons and justifications , all Ministries / Departments are requested to kindly bring to the notice of the Competent Authority while forwarding the representation against remarks in the APAR that the authority may decide on the representation in an objective manner within 30 days of receipt of the representation and give specific reasons in case of upgradation of the final grading given in the APAR as per provisions contained in this Department's aforesaid OM dated 13.4.2010.

Sd/-

(C.A. Subramanian)

Director

To

 All Ministries / Departments of Government of India.

No. 21011/1/2010-Estt.A

Government of lndia

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances 8 Pensions

Department of Personnel 8 Training

*****

  

North Block, New Delhi

Dated the 13th April, 2010

  

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

  

Subject:Below Benchmark gradings in ACRs prior to the reporting period 2008-09 and objective consideration of representation by the competent authority against remarks in the APAR or for upgradatin of the final grading.

  

The undersigned is directed to say that prior to the reporting period 2008-09, only the adverse remarks in the ACRs had to be communicated to the concerned officer forrepresentation, if any to be considered by the competent authority. The question of treating the grading in the ACR which is below the benchmark for next promotion has been considered in this Deparment and it has been decided that if an employee is to be considered for promotion in a future DPC and his ACRs prior to the period 2008-09 which would be reckonable for assessment of his fitness in such future DPCs contain final grading which are below the benchmark for his next promotion, before such ACRs are placed before the DPC, the concerned employee will be given a copy of the relevant ACR for his representation, if any, within 15 days of such communication. It may be noted that only below benchmark ACR for the period relevant to promotion need be sent. There is no need to send below benchmark ACRs of other years.

  

2. As per existing instructions, representations against the remarks or for upgradation of !he final grading given in the APAR (previously known as ACR) should be examined by the competent authority in consultation, if necessary, with the Reporting and the Reviewing Officer, if any. While considering the representation, the competentauthority decides the matter objectively in a quasi-judicial manner on the basis of material placed before it. This would imply that the competent authority shall take into account the contentions of the officer who has represented against the particularremarks/grading in the APAR and the views of the Reporting and Reviewing officer if they are still in service on the points raised in the representation vis-a-vis theremarks/gradings given bv them in the APAR. The UPSC has informed this Departrnent that the Commission has observed that while deciding such representations, the competent authorities sometimes do not take into account the views of Reporting / Reviewing Officers if thev are still in service. The Commission has further observed that in majority of such cases, the competent authority does not give specific reasons for upgrading the below benchmark ACR/APAR gradings at par with the benchmark for next promotion.

  

3. All Ministries / Departments are therefore requested to inform the competent authorities while forwarding such cases to them to decide on the representations against the remarks or for upgradation of the grading in the APAR the decision on therepresentation may be taken objectively after taking into account the views of the concerned Reporting / Reviewing Officers if they are still in service’ and in case of upgradation of the final grading given in the APAR, specific reasons therefor may also be given in the order of the competent authority.

  

(CA. Subramanian)

Director 

No. 21011/1/2005-Estt (A) (Pt-II)

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

(Department of Personnel and Training)

North Block, New Delhi,

23rd July, 2009

Subject:- Preparation and maintenance of Annual Performance Assessment Reports (APAR).

The undersigned is directed to invite the attention of the Ministries/Departments to the instructions contained in this Department's O.M. No. No. 21011/02/2009-Estt.(A) 16/02/2009 and O.M. of even umber dated 14.05.2009 on the subjects of timely preparation and proper maintenance of APAR and making the APAR transparent for representation for upgradation, if any, by the officer reported upon. The matter of preparation and maintenance of APAR has been further reviewed in this Department keeping in view the system in this regard in respect of All India Services (AIS) and the undersigned is directed to convey the following decisions:-

(i)        All cadre authorities shall include a box in the APAR for reflecting by the reporting officer the pen picture of the officer reported upon where the reporting officer will be required to indicate his comments on the overall qualities of the officer including areas of strengths and lesser strength and his attitude towards the weaker sections. A column will also be added in the section relating to the reviewing authority for giving the reviewing authority's remarks on the pen picture reflected by the reporting officer. There will be no other separate column in the APAR for overall assessment apart from the pen picture.

(ii)       A provision may be made in the APAR in the relevant section for remarks by the reviewing officer to indicate specifically the differences, if any, with the assessment made by the reporting officer, and the reasons there for.

(iii)     Numerical grading are to be awarded by reporting and reviewing authorities for the quality of work output, personal attributes and functional competence of the officer reported upon. These should be on a scale of 1-10, where 1 refers to the lowest grade and 10 to the highest. The guidelines given in Annexure- I shall be kept in mind while awarding numerical grading.

(iv)      The format for the purpose of numerical grading in the three areas of work output, assessment of personal attributes and assessment of functional competency is in Annexure-II. For Group 'B' and 'C' officials however, suitable changes may be made by the concerned cadre authorities in the items of assessment as per functional requirements of the job and the next promotional post for them. The overall grade on a score of 1-10 will be based on 40% weightage on assessment of work output, and 30% each for assessment of personal attributes and functional competency. The overall grading will be based on addition of the mean value of each group of indicators in proportion to weightage assigned.

(v)       Wherever 'accepting authority' has been prescribed in the existing system in the cadre, columns may also be provided for such authority to give his comments on the remarks of the reporting/reviewing authority and details of difference of opinion, if any, with reasons for the same. In such cases, the accepting authority will also give overall grade on a score of 1-10.

(vi)      A schedule for completion of all activities relating to the APAR is given in Annexure-III.

2.         The above provisions would be applicable for the APAR from the reporting year 2009-10 onwards. The concerned authorities may accordingly make necessary changes in the APAR format for numerical grading to be given by reporting and reviewing officer. This O.M. does not in any way affect the part to be filled in by the officer reported upon and other existing columns in the APAR format like attitude towards SC/ST/OBC, relations with public (wherever applicable), integrity, training requirement

etc. for descriptive remarks.

3.         All Ministries/Departments are requested to bring to the notice of all the offices under them for strict implementation of the above instructions.

(C.A. Subramanian)

Director

Annexure-I

Guidelines regarding filling up of APAR with numerical grading

(i)        The columns in the APAR should be filled with due care and attention and after devoting adequate time.

(ii)       It is expected that any grading of 1 or 2 (against work output or attributes or overall grade) would be adequately justified in the pen-picture by way of specific failures and similarly, any grade of 9 or 10 would be justified with respect to specific accomplishments. Grades of 1-2 or 9-10 are expected to be rare occurrences and hence the need to justify them. In awarding a numerical grade the reporting and reviewing authorities should rate the officer against a larger population of his/her peers that may be currently working under them.

(iii)     APARs graded between 8 and 10 will be rated as 'outstanding' and will be given a score of 9 for the purpose of calculating average scores for empanelment/promotion.

(iv)      APARs graded between 6 and short of 8 will be rated as 'very good'and will be given a score of 7.

(v)       APARs graded between 4 and 6 short of 6 will be rated as 'good' and given a score of 5.

(vi)      APARs graded below 4 will be given a score of zero.

Annexure II

Assessment of work output ( Weightage to this Section would be 40% )

	Reporting authority	Reviewing authority	Initials of Reviewing authority
i)                   Accomplishment of planned        work/work allotted as per subjects allotted
ii)          Quality of output
iii)        Analytical ability
(iv)      Accomplishment of exceptional work / unforeseen tasks performed
Overall Grading on 'Work Output'

           

Assessment of personal attributes ( Weightage to this Section would be 30% )

	Reporting authority	Reviewing authority	Initials of Reviewing authority
i) Attitude to work
ii) Sense of responsibility
iii) Maintenance of Discipline
iv) Communication skills
v) Leadership qualities
vi) Capacity to work in team spirit
vii) Capacity to work in time limit
viii) Inter-personal relations
Overall Grading on 'Personal attributes'

Assessment of functional competency ( Weightage to this Section would be 30% )

	Reporting authority	Reviewing authority	Initials of Reviewing authority
i)   Knowledge of Rules I Regulations /   Procedures in the area of function and ability to apply them correctly.
ii)     Strategic planning ability
iii)    Decision making ability
iv)    Coordination ability
v)     Ability to motivate and develop subordinates
Overall Grading on functional competency '