Confidential Reports should be used as a tool for human resource development and is not to be used as a fault finding process - IPS officer gets good report from Supreme Court
QUALITY OF OUTPUT | He did not use his optimum capacity and gave an impression as though his stint in COD was a sojourn. There was no willingness 'to add on' more responsibility and it was an attitude of thus far and no further. |
KNOWLEDGE AND SPHERE OF WORK: | He is knowledgeable in the profession and its related application but however, his 'paradigm' prevented him from performing better. |
LEADERSHIP QUALITIES: | He could not appreciate the environment and the work culture as defined by the Competent Authority in the COD and this block flow of new ideas or new methods of work. The 'Leader' in him went into hibernation. |
MANAGEMENT QUALITIES: | All the management qualities, which very much exist in him, became dormant to the dangerous extent of his not visiting a scene of occurrence in an important case of rape and murder of a young girl student in Chitradurga. |
INITIATIVE AND PLANNING ABILITIES: | On the only occasion when a group of agitators, after due intimation through handbills, came and squatted outside the COD premises, he, for reasons best known to himself, went out of the Office around that time and in the process, his senior had to defuse the situation. |
DECISION MAKING ABILITY: | His decision making was governed by his 'paradigm'. |
COMMUNICATION SKILLS: | He has command over English and in his few files wherein he was preferred to be elaborate, he has expressed himself clearly. However, his expression in Kannada needs improvement. His presentation of arguments is also good but on a certain occasion; he created an unpleasant scene with the DGP which was totally avoidable. |
APPRAISING ABILITY: | His evaluation of some of his subordinates was clouded by some of 'His past experiences' with them elsewhere. |
INTER-PERSONAL RELATIONS AND TEAMWORK: | His professional relationship with one of his Senior Officers was marked by cold hostility. It was lukewarm with others. |
GENERAL BEARING PERSONALITY: | Anything but smiling. |
SOCIABILITY: | Prefers to be aloof. |
DEDICATION TO DUTY: | Depends on his convenience. |
ATTENTION TO DETAILS: | Yes; but takes his own time; response time is not fast. |
ABILITY TO TAKE A PRINCIPLED STAND: | It is clouded by his 'Paradigm'. |
GENERAL ASSESSMENT: | He has the capacity to deliver goods but cannot adjust to the organization as a whole if he can't vibe with his seniors. An arrogant Officer. His knowledge of work is good, but he cannot be objective and impartial in discharging his duties. |
These are the entries in the Annual Confidential Report of an exceptionally meritorious IPS officer for the period 16.10.1996 to 15.03.1997. And this was the opinion of the Reviewing officer
"Arrogant officer, His knowledge and work is good, but he cannot be objective and impartial in discharging his duties."
Now have a look at his report for the last 16 years
year | remarks |
1.4.1990 to 31.3.1991 | very good. "He has been ably assisting the DGP and shows keen interest to receive instructions and do good work". |
1.11.1991 to 31.3.1992 | quite a knowledgeable officer, hard working and when asked, can tender unbiased opinions. |
period ending 31.3.1993 | very good |
period ending 31.1.1994 | outstanding |
1.4.1997 to 18.4.1997 | very good |
1.4.1998 to 31.3.1999 | very good |
1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000 | excellent |
14.7.2000 to 28.2.2001 | His integrity is beyond doubt. |
1.4.2001 to 31.7.2001 | outstanding |
period ending 31.3.2002 | outstanding |
1.4.2002 to 30.9.2002 | Outstanding |
period ending 31.3.2003 | Outstanding |
period ending 31.3.2004 | A very knowledgeable and disciplined officer; Grading : Outstanding. |
period ending 31.3.2005 | An officer with a most pleasing personality. Endowed with a sharp and inquiring mind, he has tremendous conceptual ability as he has been proved by the quantum leap achieved in Karnataka Police Computerization during his stewardship. He has absolute clarity in both oral and written communication. His speed of disposal is remarkable |
31.3.2006 | He is well versed in his area of responsibility and has been acquitting himself excellently in those fields. He is an officer with initiative, judgement and promptitude and takes decisions. Integrity : beyond doubt Grading : Outstanding |
For a brief period of 150 days, this excellent officer was bad. How?
And what does he do?
He approached the CAT, but as it happens during bad days, his plea was that all those remarks are the result of personal bias against him as well as the incompetence, lack of objectivity and frustration on the part of his boss C. Dinakar who at the relevant point of time was working as Director General of Police, COD. But unfortunately the remarks were actually made by another officer and Mr. Dinakar was the reviewing officer. Mr. Dinakar who was a respondent in the case won a cost Of Rs. 3000/- which the petitioner IPS officer had to pay. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the petition and the distinguished Police officer approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement last week, first observed that “Unfortunately, the reporting authority was not made a party-respondent to the proceedings in question.” The Court observed,
1. the appellant is an officer of outstanding qualities and merit.
2. Except for the impugned remarks made by the reporting officer and by the second respondent as the reviewing authority, he has been consistently graded as "outstanding", "very good" and "excellent" and has also been entrusted with various responsibilities.
3. It is true that in his representation he has used intemperate language, mainly against respondent No.2, on an erroneous assumption that the adverse remarks had been made by the said respondent, but use of such intemperate language has to be looked at objectively after careful consideration of all the Annual Confidential Reports for all the years which are also before us.
4. 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.
5. This Court has 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Even his outburst against the respondent No.2 in his representation appears to be a fall out of such presumption which was certainly not expected of an officer of the rank and calibre of the appellant.
10. But, in our view, the same should not come in the way of an otherwise unblemished and outstanding career.
11. In our view, the High Court was prejudiced by the intemperate outburst of the appellant in his representation, which led to the dismissal of the writ petition.
12. On account of such prejudice, the High Court chose to ignore the consistently good record of the appellant and based its judgment on the basis of the language used by the appellant in his representation.
13. Furthermore, the High Court also failed to appreciate that remarks such as "anything but smiling", "cannot vibe with his seniors" and "his decision making was governed by his paradigm" are not remarks which are adverse or could have been used to justify the average rating in the appellant's A.C.R.
14. The Tribunal also appears to have been prejudiced by the intemperate language used by the appellant against the second respondent. The Tribunal while holding that such language was totally unacceptable also imposed cost of Rs.3,000/- on the appellant to be paid to the second respondent.
So the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and the High Court and directed the authorities not to treat the appellant's performance during the period in question as average.
The Supreme Court also had a word of advice for the brilliant IPS officer – Don’t use intemperate and abusive language in future while discharging his official functions.