‘Annual Confidential Report' is now ‘Annual Performance Assessment Report' (APAR)
As per the existing provisions only adverse remarks should be communicated to the officer reported upon for representation, if any. The Supreme Court has held 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.
So the Government has changed the whole system of ACRs . Instead of Annual Confidential Report, it will now be called Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR).
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.
The concerned (here he is really 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't the whole system of reporting a subordinate's performance a big farce? If a totally corrupt officer has to report on the integrity of a totally honest officer, where is objectivity in the whole scheme? Senior officers, whom the government found best fit to be in jail, have written the ACRs of their subordinates. Can't we just do away with this nonsense?