Below benchmark gradings in ACRs prior to 2008-09 and consideration of representation by the Competent authority - DOPT Memo dated 13.4.2010

Copy of Dept of Personnel and Trainig Memo No 21011/1/2010-Estt.A dated 13.4.2010 is reproduced below. As per this OM, the below benchmark gradings for the period prior to 2008-09 should be communicated to the official concerned for representation If any within 15 days of such communication. The representation should be considered by the competent authority, and the competent authority should get the report of reporting/reviewing authorities also before upgradation such ACR.

Sub : Below Benchmark gradings in ACRs prior to the reporting period 200849 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 for representation, 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 Dromotion has been considered in this De~arbnenat nd 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 DEcSont ain final grading which are below the benchmark for his next promotion, before such ACRs are placed before the DPC, the concemed 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 competent authority 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 particular remarkslgrading in the APAR and the views of the Reporting and Reviewing officer if they are still in service on the points raised in the remesentation vis-a-vis the remarkstaradinas given bv them in the APAR. The UPSC has informed this ~epartrnentth at the Commission hasobsebei that while deciding such representations,t he competent authorities sometimes do not take into account the views of RewrtinaIReviewina Officers if thev are still in service. The Commission has further observed that in a'majGty of succ cases, the competent authority does not give specific reasons for upgrading the below benchmark ACRlAPAR gradings at par with the benchmark for next promotion.

3. All MinistrieslDepartments 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 that the decision on the representation may be taken objectively after taking into account the views of the concerned ReportinqlReviewing Officers if they are still in se~ice'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.