E1-E2 CSS

CHAPTER-9
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT RULING
Confidential Report is an objective assessment of the work and conduct of an employee.
For confirmation, promotion, review under F. R, 56 (j) for premature retirement, etc. of
employees, CRs are referred by the DPC/U.P.S.C.
Writing and maintenance of CRs, therefore, assumes importance. Thus the system of CRs is
a very powerful tool in the hands of Administration for various purposes like deputation,
training, Career Planning etc.
Self-appraisal or self assessment
(1)The System of Performance Appraisal requires the senior, subordinate and officers to be
given targets in advance and the work to be reviewed periodically. At the end of the year, he
gives his self-appraisal or self-assessment along with a resume of good work and reasons for
not doing the allotted work.
The reporting officer must fill up each column of CR very carefully and his overall
assessment must be based on assessment in each column. He should take into account the
letters of appreciation / warning / admonition / reprimand given during the year. This must be
an objective assessment based on actual performance and matter on record.
The CR form covers general qualities, professional abilities, integrity, intelligence, tact,
industry, keen ness, attitude towards SCs/STs, to superiors, equals and subordinates, general
conduct and character, social ability, aptitudes and shortcoming, etc.
Wherever an entry is based on an actual incident, it should be indicated. The resume given by
the officer should be duly considered.
The reporting officer will submit the CR to Reviewing Officer who may make his own
assessment and record changes, if necessary. The Report is finally put up to the Accepting
Authority.
Merits of Performance Appraisal
It gives an opportunity to the employee to review his own performance through self-
appraisal. The boss gets the opportunity to discuss the targets with his subordinate and
interact with him periodically before he analyses the performance for the entire year. He can,
during his interactions, guide, train, encourage, counsel and develop his subordinate
according to the need of the job and the performance made.
Note: The resume should not exceed 300 words as self-appraisal relating to the period of the
Report.
Adverse Entries
(i) Adverse Entries if any shall be communicated to the employee and his representation, if
any, shall be considered by the Accepting Authority who will pass a speaking order, if
representation is to be rejected.

BSNL India For Internal Circulation only Page 1

E1-E2 CSS

(ii) If accepted, the adverse remarks shall be expunged.

(iii) Non-communication of adverse entries, or considering them without disposing of the
representation, if any, is not permitted.
(iv) DPC will direct the concerned authorities to follow the procedure, whenever any lapse is
found. It will consider the case only after the formalities of communication etc., have been
completed.

Fitness for Promotion

The entry regarding "fitness for promotion" has been removed from both Part
I & II in respect of all Group C staff.
Instead, a column on "special attributes" has been included. Where the column exists,
remarks 'Fit' 'Not Yet Fit', or 'Not Fit' to be consistent with the comments contained in body
of the C.R. ('Not Yet Fit' is mentioned where the officials have not completed the minimum
service prescribed for promotion. 'Fit' in his turn would be more appropriate in such cases).
Reporting officer can write CR of his subordinates within one month of his
retirement — when the reporting officer retires or otherwise demits office, he may be
allowed to give the report on his subordinates within a month of his retirement or demission
of office. However, a reviewing authority cannot review the ACR after his retirement.
Writing of CRs by Reporting / reviewing officer under suspension — No
officer under suspension should be allowed to write/review CRs on his subordinates if during
major part of writing / reviewing, he is under suspension as he might not have full
opportunity to supervise the work of his subordinates. In other cases, such reporting /
reviewing officer shall report / review within two months of his being placed under
suspension or one month of the date on which the report was due whichever is earlier.
Form, contents and manner of writing ACRs—
(1) The form in which the confidential reports are recorded might vary from Department
to Department and as between different levels of responsibility within a departmental
hierarchy, depending upon the nature of work and duties attached to various posts. However,
an assessment of certain qualities of general importance such as integrity, intelligence,
keenness, industry, tact, attitude towards superiors and subordinates, relations with fellow -
employees, etc., should invariably find place in the Report.
Note: If the official's integrity is beyond doubt, may be stated so against the column. In case
of doubt or suspicion, prescribed procedure for recording a secret note separately to be
followed up. Such column to be filled up suitably if doubts are cleared. If suspicions are
confirmed, fact to be recorded. In no case 'doubtful integrity' or 'complaints received against
the official' to be mentioned. If there is no material for follow-up action, general practice is to
mention nothing adverse came to notice'.
A confidential Report should give full particulars of the official reported upon such as his
designation and the office in which he works. Below the signature of the reporting and

BSNL India For Internal Circulation only Page 2

E1-E2 CSS

countersigning officers, both their names and designations should be written in capital letters
or their rubber stamps affixed.
CR files should be maintained in book form, the reports being placed one after the other in
chronological order and pages being serially numbered from top downwards. Relevant
entries in the index of an ACR file should be filled in immediately after a report is written up.
'CR' format for Group 'A' officers shall not contain column meant to indicate whether the
officer belongs to SC/ST community as it operates to his disadvantage more particularly in
the case of C.H.S. Officer, (effective from reporting year 1999-2000)
(6) (i) A confidential Report should, as a rule, give general appreciation of the character,
conduct and qualities of an officer reported upon and a reference to a specific incident should
be made, if at all, only by way of illustration to support adverse comments of a general
nature, as for example, inefficiency, delay, lack of initiative, judgment, etc.
(ii) Specific incidents on the basis of which penalties have been awarded in the courses of
departmental proceedings must, however, be indicated.
(iii) An entry relating to a penalty should be recorded in the Report for the year in which the
punishment order is issued.
(7) Apart from the remarks in regard to work and conduct, in appropriate cases, suitable
entries may also be made on the following points:-
(i) the fact that an officer has attended an approved course of study of training,
(ii) the report received from the head of such institution or its substance;
(iii)comments on the quality of the Report submitted by an officer on return from
deputation or training abroad and whether he has made good use of his period of study or
training;
(iv) outstanding performances in the field of sports, athletics and art;
(v) suggestions which have been accepted and considered useful for achieving economy
and high standard of efficiency in administration; and
(vi) Whether there is any physical defect, such as bad eye-sight.
CR file should not contain any extraneous paper other than punishment and appellate orders
and letters communicating the adverse remarks.
Note: INSTRUCTIONS for filling entries in confidential report forms, at the end, should be
carefully understood. Principles to be observed in writing CRs —
a. Remarks like "Doubtful character", "complaints received about his taking illegal
gratification" are nor permissible. Entries should be based on established facts and not
on mere suspicion.
b. No employee should be adversely affected by prejudicial reports recorded without
fullest consideration. At the same time, none should be rewarded by excessively
flattering reports which are not based on facts. With a view to checking up such
possibilities, the following procedure is prescribed :-

BSNL India For Internal Circulation only Page 3

E1-E2 CSS

c. The memo of services should invariably be consulted at the time of writing the
Annual Report though the report itself should necessarily be based on the employee's
performance during the year as a whole.
d. where an adverse remark is recorded in respect of an official having consistently good
record, some details regarding the same should invariably be given;
e. The Report should give a clear opinion on the main points like character, integrity,
industry, etc.;
f. There should be no hesitation on the part of the reporting officers to record adverse
remarks in justified cases; and
g. The reporting officers should not be in a hurry to write all the reports on one day.

Duties of Reviewing / Endorsing Officer —

(i) Reporting, reviewing and endorsing officers should have been acquainted with the work
of the official reported upon for at least three months during the period covered by the
Annual Confidential Report.
(ii) With a view to enabling the reviewing authority to discharge his responsibility in
ensuring the objectivity of the Annual Confidential Reports where he is not sufficiently
familiar with the work of the officer reported upon so as to be able to arrive at a proper and
independent judgment of his own, it should be his responsibility to verify the correctness of
the remarks of the reporting officer after making such enquiries as he may consider
necessary, he should also give a hearing to the person reported upon before recording his
remarks.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS
DO's
a. As soon as you take charge of any office, check whether all CRs are complete in all
respects, if not complete, take action.
b. If any adverse online uncommunicated communicate them forthwith.
c. Call for missing CRs and prepare folders for new officials.
d. Communicate adverse entries (if you are reviewing authority) within three months.
e. Dispose off representation against adverse entries within three months.
f. Countersign a repot only if you have three months experience.
g. Make entries based on established facts only and not on mere suspicion, Remarks like
"doubted character", "complaints received", "investigations pending", "charge sheet
pending" are not permissible.
h. While recording adverse remarks indicate the efforts made by way of guidance,
admonitions etc. to get those defects removed and the results of such efforts provide
necessary training, wherever possible.
i. Along with adverse entries, communicate the substance of the entire report including
what may have been stated in praise.

BSNL India For Internal Circulation only Page 4

E1-E2 CSS

j. Keep only letters of appreciation issued by Government Secretary of Head of

Department, special bodies or commissions or committee in CR file not others.
DONT's
a. Do not write a report of an official who has not worked for three months with you.
b. Do not make vague comments
c. Do not make entries which are not based on established facts.
d. Do not issue appreciation letters and make suitable commission in the CR itself.
Discipline Rules
Warning / Admonition / Reprimand
[ Swamy's — Compilation on Confidential Reports ]
There may be occasions when a superior officer may find it necessary
to criticize adversely his subordinate's work or call for an explanation
bringing the defects to the notice and giving him an opportunity to explain.
If the lapse is not serious enough, like negligence, carelessness, lack of
thoroughness, etc., to justify the imposition of the formal punishment of
censure, but calls for some formal action such as the communication of a
written warning/admonition/reprimand, it may be administered and a copy of
such a warning, etc., should be kept in the personal file of the subordinate.
Written warning, admonition or reprimands should not be administered or placed on record
unless the authority- is satisfied that there is good and
sufficient reason to do so.
If in the reporting officer's opinion, despite the warning, etc., the official concerned has not
improved, he may make appropriate mention against
the relevant column in the Confidential Report. This will constitute an adverse
entry and requires to be communicated.
Where a copy of the warning is also kept in the Confidential Report
Dossier, it will be taken to constitute an adverse entry and the officer concerned has the right
to represent against the same.
Warning should not be issued as a result of regular disciplinary
proceedings. If it is found that some blame attaches to the official, then the
penalty of censure at least should be imposed.
Warning is not a punishment and cannot be equated to a formal
censure.—Para. 19.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
Introduction
The history of performance appraisal is quite brief. Its roots in the early 20th century can be
traced to Taylor's pioneering Time and Motion studies. But this is not very helpful, for the
same may be said about almost everything in the field of modern human resources
management.

BSNL India For Internal Circulation only Page 5

E1-E2 CSS

As a distinct and formal management procedure used in the evaluation of work

performance, appraisal really dates from the time of the Second World War - not more than
60 years ago.
Yet in a broader sense, the practice of appraisal is a very ancient art. In the scale of things
historical, it might well lay claim to being the world's second oldest profession!
There is, says Dulewicz (1989), "... a basic human tendency to make judgments about those
one is working with, as well as about oneself." Appraisal, it seems, is both inevitable and
universal. In the absence of a carefully structured system of appraisal, people will tend to
judge the work performance of others, including subordinates, naturally, informally and
arbitrarily.
The human inclination to judge can create serious motivational, ethical and legal problems
in the workplace. Without a structured appraisal system, there is little chance of ensuring
that the judgments made will be lawful, fair, defensible and accurate.
Performance appraisal systems began as simple methods of income justification. That is,
appraisal was used to decide whether or not the salary or wage of an individual employee
was justified.
The process was firmly linked to material outcomes. If an employee's performance was
found to be less than ideal, a cut in pay would follow. On the other hand, if their
performance was better than the supervisor expected, a pay rise was in order.
Little consideration, if any, was given to the developmental possibilities of appraisal. If was
felt that a cut in pay, or a rise, should provide the only required impetus for an employee to
either improve or continue to perform well.
Sometimes this basic system succeeded in getting the results that were intended; but more
often than not, it failed.
For example, early motivational researchers were aware that different people with roughly
equal work abilities could be paid the same amount of money and yet have quite different
levels of motivation and performance.
These observations were confirmed in empirical studies. Pay rates were important, yes; but
they were not the only element that had an impact on employee performance. It was found
that other issues, such as morale and self-esteem, could also have a major influence.
As a result, the traditional emphasis on reward outcomes was progressively rejected. In the
1950s in the United States, the potential usefulness of appraisal as tool for motivation and
development was gradually recognized. The general model of performance appraisal, as it
is known today, began from that time.

Modern Appraisal
Performance appraisal may be defined as a structured formal interaction between a
subordinate and supervisor, that usually takes the form of a periodic interview (annual or
semi-annual), in which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and discussed,

BSNL India For Internal Circulation only Page 6

E1-E2 CSS

with a view to identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities for improvement
and skills development.
In many organizations - but not all - appraisal results are used, either directly or indirectly, to
help determine reward outcomes. That is, the appraisal results are used to identify the better
performing employees who should get the majority of available merit pay increases, bonuses,
and promotions.
By the same token, appraisal results are used to identify the poorer performers who may
require some form of counseling, or in extreme cases, demotion, dismissal or decreases in
pay. (Organizations need to be aware of laws in their country that might restrict their capacity
to dismiss employees or decrease pay.)
Whether this is an appropriate use of performance appraisal - the assignment and justification
of rewards and penalties - is a very uncertain and contentious matter.

Controversy, Controversy
few issues in management stir up more controversy than performance appraisal.
There are many reputable sources - researchers, management commentators, and
psychometricians - who have expressed doubts about the validity and reliability of the
performance appraisal process. Some have even suggested that the process is so inherently
flawed that it may be impossible to perfect it
At the other extreme; there are many strong advocates of performance appraisal. Some view
it as potentially "... the most crucial aspect of organizational life"
Between these two extremes lie various schools of belief. While all endorse the use of
performance appraisal, there are many different opinions on how and when to apply it.
There are those, for instance, who believe that performance appraisal has many important
employee development uses, but scorn any attempt to link the process to reward outcomes -
such as pay rises and promotions.
This group believes that the linkage to reward outcomes reduces or eliminates the
developmental value of appraisals. Rather than an opportunity for constructive review and
encouragement, the reward-linked process is perceived as judgmental, punitive and
harrowing
For example, how many people would gladly admit their work problems if, at the same time,
they knew that their next pay rise or a much-wanted promotion was riding on an appraisal
result? Very likely, in that situation, many people would deny or downplay their weaknesses.
Nor is the desire to distort or deny the truth confined to the person being appraised. Many
appraisers feel uncomfortable with the combined role of judge and executioner.
Such reluctance is not difficult to understand. Appraisers often know their appraises well,
and are typically in a direct subordinate-supervisor relationship. They work together on a
daily basis and may, at times, mix socially. Suggesting that a subordinate needs to brush up
on certain work skills is one thing; giving an appraisal result that has the direct effect of
negating a promotion is another.

BSNL India For Internal Circulation only Page 7

E1-E2 CSS

The result can be resentment and serious morale damage, leading to workplace disruption,
soured relationships and productivity declines.
On the other hand, there is a strong rival argument which claims that performance appraisal
must unequivocally be linked to reward outcomes.
The advocates of this approach say that organizations must have a process by which rewards
- which are not an unlimited resource - may be openly and fairly distributed to those most
deserving on the basis of merit, effort and results.
There is a critical need for remunerative justice in organizations. Performance appraisal -
whatever its practical flaws - is the only process available to help achieve fair, decent and
consistent reward outcomes.
It has also been claimed that appraises themselves are inclined to believe that appraisal
results should be linked directly to reward outcomes - and are suspicious and disappointed
when told this is not the case. Rather than feeling relieved, appraises may suspect that they
are not being told the whole truth, or that the appraisal process is a sham and waste of time.

ACR/APAR BSNL GUIDELINES:

The Supreme Court has held in their judgment dated 12.5.2008 in the case of Dev
Dutt vs Union of India (Civil Appeal No.7631 of 2002) 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 Report
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.2. Keeping in
view the above position, the matter regarding communication of entries in theACRs 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 & same is
circulated by BSNL CO vide letter No. No. 400-99/2009-Pers.I Dated: -22 July, 2009
regarding Maintenance and preparation of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports
communication of all entries for fairness and transparency in public administration.

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 Authority wherever such system is in
vogue. Where Government servant has only one supervisory level above him as in the
case of 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.

BSNL India For Internal Circulation only Page 8

E1-E2 CSS

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The new system of communicating the entries in the APAR shall be made applicable
prospectively only with effect from the reporting period 2008-09 which is to be
initiated after 1st April 2009.
8. 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.
9. 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.
In continuation of above revised guidelines for Circulated vide letter No:

BSNL India For Internal Circulation only Page 9

E1-E2 CSS

BSNL India For Internal Circulation only Page 10