Appraisal: PAR for the course?

The recent proposal of the union government to modify the Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) as applicable to the officers of the IAS raises a question about the role the PAR plays in the career progression of All-India Service (AIS) — IAS, IPS and Forest Service — officers.

The PAR for AIS officers is covered under All-India Services (PAR) Rules, 2007. Though the format of this report is different for different services and different levels of officers, there are certain common factors, like the self-appraisal, in which the officer has to detail his annual workplan, targets set and reached, details of any achievements and drawbacks, areas where upgradation of skills are required, and the like.

The assessment by the reporting officer contains comments on the officer’s self-appraisal, assessment of the officer’s work output and the officer’s exceptional contribution or significant failures if any. A new column detailing the officer’s decision-taking ability, ownership of responsibility, innovativeness, ability as a team leader, etc., is now proposed to be introduced.

It is also proposed to introduce a sub-section on financial and moral integrity of the officer in respect of Secretary/Additional Secretary level in the Government of India. For others, remarks about integrity in general are enough. The officer’s attitude towards the weaker sections of society is another section which is proposed to be introduced. Each reporting and reviewing officer has to grade an AIS officer on a scale of one to 10.

After the PAR is initiated, a review is done by an officer superior in rank to the reporting officer, which has to be later accepted by the Accepting Authority. After its acceptance, the officer reported upon is provided a copy of his PAR and given an opportunity to comment or appeal on his assessment.

Though no one can find fault with the current format of the PAR or its proposed revision, the report has no significant role to play in the career progression of an officer. The reasons are many. Goals are rarely set for the officers at the beginning of the year, and hence no review is possible at the end of it.

Whatever the officer writes in his self-assessment isn’t measured against a target. Very few reporting officers take the annual exercise of initiating the PARs seriously. Often, dozens of PARs are written in a matter of an hour. Most entries are made mechanically.

Earlier, such reports, then called Annual Confidential Report (ACR), were not being communicated to the officers reported upon. Only if the report contained adverse entries, a gist was communicated, without mentioning who made the adverse entry.

Dishonest appraisals

With the introduction of the PAR, where the entire report is made available to the officer, every reporting officer has become careful about what he writes. To avoid antagonising his subordinates, minor achievements are exaggerated, and shortcomings gloated over. Hence, almost everyone gets a grade of eight or above.

Some officers also demand that they be given grades of nine and above so as to be on par with their peers in other states. There have been instances where angry subordinates have questioned their superiors for not rating them high. Seniors have started acceding to such demands. This has defeated the very purpose of writing the appraisal.

The PAR is meant to be an assessment tool for giving suitable placements to an officer. Unfortunately, posting of officers does not depend on the officer’s suitability. Those who are close to the powers-that-be always manage to get ‘important’ posts. It is rare to find an officer get a posting purely based on his domain knowledge as identified in his PAR.

PARs do not also play a major role in an officer’s promotion prospects. In the states, an entire bunch of officers belonging to a particular batch is generally promoted together. Promotion in the central government is stricter, but it affects only those officers who are on deputation. And to be deputed to the central government, an officer needs to be empanelled. PARs play a significant role in empanelment.

Unfortunately, a majority of AIS officers serving in the states avoid going on central deputation for a variety of reasons. Out of the 68 posts for IAS and 46 for the IPS meant for central deputation of Karnataka officers, only 21 IAS and 13 IPS officers are currently on deputation.

Instead of changing the PAR format, it would be worthwhile to bring in some confidentiality in its reporting. The reporting officers should be made to set clear targets and review an officer’s performance only against the targets set.

Officers consistently getting low grades may be weeded out by premature retirement and high performers may be given out of turn promotions and assignments suitable to their domain expertise. A system of promotion currently prevalent in the defence forces may also be considered for AIS officers. Only then, AIS officers would become public servants in the true sense.

(The author is a retired DGP, Karnataka cadre)