REPORT NO. 92

PARLIAMENT OF RAJYA SABHA

DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE

NINETY SECOND REPORT

Appraisal and Empanelment of Civil Servants under the Central Government

(Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 8th August, 2017) (Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 10th August, 2017)

Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New August, 2017/Shravana, 1939 (Saka) Website : http://rajyasabha. nic. in E-mail : [email protected]. in version of this publication is also available CS (P & L) - 179

PARLIAMENT OF INDIA RAJYA SABHA

DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE

NINETY SECOND REPORT

Appraisal and Empanelment of Civil Servants under the Central Government

(Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 8th August, 2017) (Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 10th August, 2017)

Rajya Sabha Secretariat, August, 2017/Shravana, 1939 (Saka)

CONTENTS

PAGES

1. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE...... i-ii

2. INTRODUCTION...... iii-iv

3. REPORT...... 1-29

(i) Chapter - I - Performance Appraisal...... 1-9

(ii) Chapter - II - Empanelment under Central Staffing Scheme...... 10-23

4. RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS — AT A GLANCE...... 24-29

5. MINUTES ...... 31-45

6. LIST OF EXPERTS/STAKEHOLDERS WHO OFFERED THEIR VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT...... 46-47

7. ANNEXURES...... 49-77

I - All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007...... 51-56

II - Guidelines for Secretary/Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary Level Empanelment including guidelines for Experts Panel...... 57-70

III - List of Services Participating under Central Staffing Scheme...... 71-72

IV - State/Cadre-wise List of IAS Officers Empanelled for JS/AS/Secretary level during last Five years ...... 73-77

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE (Re-constituted 1st September, 2016)

1. Shri Anand Sharma — Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Ms. Anu Aga

3. Shri Prabhat Jha

4. Shri Dilipbhai Pandya

5. Shrimati Rajani Patil

6. Shri D. Raja

7. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy

8. Shri Ram Chandra Prasad Singh

9. Shri Tiruchi Siva

10. Shri K. T. S. Tulsi

LOK SABHA

11. Shri Tariq Anwar

12. Shri Idris Ali

13. Shri Sharad Bansode

14. Shri A. H. Khan Choudhary

15. Adv. Joice George

16. Choudhary Mehboob Ali Kaiser

17. Shri Santosh Kumar

18. Shri Bhagwant Mann

19. Shri B. V. Nayak

20. Shri Vincent H. Pala

21. Shri Vittalbhai Hansrajbhai Radadiya

22. Shri V. Panneer Selvam

23. Dr. A. Sampath

24. Shri M. Udhayakumar

(i) 25. Shri Varaprasad Rao Velagapalli

26. Dr. Anshul Verma

@27. Shrimati Meenakashi Lekhi

@28. Shri Pralhad V. Joshi

@29. Dr. Satya Pal Singh

30. Vacant

31. Vacant

SECRETARIAT

Dr. D. B. Singh, Secretary

Shri K. P. Singh, Joint Secretary

Shrimati Sunita Sekaran, Director

Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Joint Director

Shrimati Chanderlekha Sharma, Under Secretary

@ Nominated w.e.f. 29th November, 2016

(ii) INTRODUCTION

I, Chairman of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, having been authorized by the Committee on its behalf, do hereby present the Ninety Second Report on the Subject 'Appraisal and Empanelment of Civil Servants under the Central Government'. The Committee identified the Subject for examination and report on 7th October, 2016.

2. The Committee heard the views of Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions during its meeting held on 16th January, 2017. The Committee heard the views of former Chief Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, New Delhi and Directors of LBSNAA, Mussoorie and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad during its meeting held on 2nd May, 2017 and also heard incumbent Cabinet Secretary, former Cabinet Secretary, Director General, National Academy of Customs, Excise and Narcotics and representatives of I.P.S. (Central) Association; IRS (Customs, Central Excise and Service Taxes) Association; IRS (Income Tax) Association; Confederation of Civil Services Association; Indian Civil and Administrative Service (Central) Association; and Indian Forest Service (Central) Association on 11th May, 2017. The Committee also heard the views of representatives of Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), New Delhi and Management Development Institute (MDI), Gurugram, Haryana in its meeting held on 16th June, 2017.

3. The Committee interacted with the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab during its study visit to Chandigarh during 7th to 8th June, 2017.

4. While considering the Subject, the Committee took note of the following documents/information placed before it:-

(i) Background Note on the subject received from Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions;

(ii) Replies of Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions to queries raised by the Chairman and Members during the meetings on the subject;

(iii) Note on the method of Performance Appraisal of Civil Servants followed in other countries and in corporate sector of India;

(iv) Written submissions of various Service Associations/Organizations;

(v) Performance Appraisal of Civil Servants-A background paper prepared by Sardar Patel Institute of Public Administration, Ahmadabad;

(vi) Performance Management in Government, published by the Centre for Good Governance, Hyderabad on the occasion of fourth Civil Services Day;

(iii) (vii) Surinder Nath Committee Report on Performance Appraisal, Promotion, Empanelment and Placement for the All India Services and other Group 'A' services (2003);

(viii) Tenth Report of Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008);

(ix) Central Staffing Scheme, 1996;

(x) The All India Service (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007; and

(xi) Views of the Chief Secretaries of the State Governments.

5. The Committee wishes to place on record its gratitude to the representatives of the Ministries/ Departments for furnishing necessary information/documents and rendering valuable assistance to the Committee in its deliberations. The Committee also wishes to express its gratitude to all the distinguished persons who appeared before the Committee and placed their valuable views on the Subject and furnished written notes and information in connection with the examination of the Subject.

6. For the facility of reference and convenience, the observations and recommendations of the Committee have been printed in bold letters in the body of the Report.

7. The Committee considered and adopted the Report in its meeting held on the 2nd August, 2017.

NEW DELHI; ANAND SHARMA 2nd August, 2017 Chairman, 11 Shravana, 1939 (Saka) Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice Rajya Sabha.

(iv) REPORT

CHPATER-I

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Performance Appraisal (PA) is a systematic and periodic process to assess performance, productivity and potential of the personnel in relation to predetermined standards/parameters laid down for the purpose. The need of performance appraisal is to find the suitability of the personnel for the purpose of promotion, placement, foreign assignment/deputation, empanelment, training, etc. Besides this, performance appraisal also helps the personnel to align their personal aspirations to the goal/plan of the organization.

FORMAT FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

2. The Annual Confidential Report (ACR) which was in existence till 2007 has been replaced by Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR). It is the basic tool devised to assess performance and personality traits of the personnel. Three sixty degree appraisal is also being used as supplemental tool to the APAR for empanelment and elevation to the level of Joint Secretary and above in the under the Central Staffing Scheme, since 2015. All these instruments are means for personnel management in the Government of India.

2.1. The superior officer in an organization functions through his/her subordinates and gets credit for the good performance of his subordinates. The Reporting, the Reviewing and the Accepting Authorities are required to appraise their subordinates for the purpose of career progression. The ACR has been replaced by the APAR in pursuance of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India (2008) (Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002). The ACR followed the grading system ranging from Average to Outstanding, with Good and Very Good between these, while in the APAR system, ratings are made in numerical grades from 0-10 on different parameters. In addition to the above provisions, domain expertise is also assessed in the APAR system. In both the methods, different weightage are given for work output, personality traits and functional competency of the individual. Major difference between these two formats is that only the adverse remark, if any, in the ACR was disclosed to the employee for making a representation thereon, whereas the entire format and ratings in APAR are disclosed. There is a provision for appeal to the Referral Board / memorial to the President of India in the case of disagreement with the rating given by the superior under the APAR.

360 DEGREE APPRAISAL

3. 360 Degree Appraisal, alternatively called Multi Source Feedback (MSF), is widely used in the Corporate Sector for developmental purposes of the personnel. It is now being used for appraisal of officers from the All India Services and other Central Government Group 'A' services for empanelling them to the post of Joint Secretary and above in the Government of India. It is a supplemental method to the APAR system, on the basis of which the officers are identified for further evaluation by obtaining 2 feedbacks from people around them. Thus feedbacks from peer, subordinate, customers (both internal and external) in addition to self and superior's appraisal play an important role in 360 degree evaluation. This system of appraisal is prevalent in the UK, EU and Australia. The concept is depicted in following diagram:

360 Degree performance feedback in organizations1

NECESSITY OF 360 DEGREE APPRAISAL

4. To the query of the Committee as to what necessitated to factor into 360 degree review of the officers for empanelment purpose, the DoPT in its written submission stated as under:

"Prior to introduction of 360 Degree Appraisal, empanelment at Secretary and Additional Secretary level was done on the basis of assessment of ACRs/APARs only. Several problems were noticed in this system. After the Dev Dutt judgment, most officers were graded ten or near about, because the ACRs/APARs have to be conveyed to the officer concerned. Then there were also instances where different gradings were given by the Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting authorities, making it difficult to take a final view. There were situations where officers who were known to be of doubtful integrity could get empanelled because the ACR/APARs were all outstanding. On the other hand, there was a possibility that officers who did not have the requisite gradings but were otherwise outstanding in their work, got left out. It became difficult to distinguish between the best and the others. The earlier system of empanelment did not fully capture the qualities of officers in terms of integrity and capability and there was a felt need to improve the mechanism.

It was in this background that the revised guidelines for empanelment were put in place in April, 2016. The guidelines, inter-alia, provide for collection of Multi Source Feedback (MSF) from a minimum of 5 stakeholders such as Seniors, Juniors, Peers, External Stakeholders and serving Secretaries. This is known as the 360-degree review and is the same as MSF. The Experts Panel takes feedback on 7 (seven) attributes which include decision making, ownership, pro-activeness,

1Shamim, Akhtar and others - Towards 360 Degree Performance Review of Ministers (2014); ASCI Journal of Management; Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad, p.4 3

delivery, leadership, honesty and suitability for higher positions. Based on this and the assessment of ACR/APARs, the Experts Panel gives its recommendations. Thus, the assessment of the officer is made not just on his record, but also on the above qualities and his/her general reputation. The new system has been widely recognized as an improvement over the earlier system."

RULES/GUIDELINES FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

5. The Performance Appraisal of All India Services (AIS) is governed under the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 (Annexure I) and the Performance Appraisal of other Central Civil Services is made in accordance with various instructions issued by the DoPT from time to time in this regard. The Government notified the All India Service (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 on 14th March, 2007 and these rules were made applicable to IAS officers from the year 2007-08 and in the case of Indian Police Service (IPS) and Indian Forest Service (IFoS) from the year 2008-09. The latest Guidelines issued by the Government for empanelment of Secretary / Additional Secretary and for Experts Panel are placed at 'Annexure-II'. To introduce 360 degree feedback, the guidelines were last revised in April, 2016. These guidelines, inter-alia, provide for collection of Multi Source Feedback (MSF), alternatively called 360 degree evaluation.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL VS. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

6.0. While examining the Performance Appraisal, the Committee came across the Tenth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission wherein the Commission evaluated both Performance Management and Performance Appraisal, which are quite often considered as same. While 'Performance management' is a broad system of defining and measuring performance, besides developing incentives for individuals and organizations. It touches the processes of planning, implementing, reviewing, evaluating and reporting to gauge the impact of policies and programmes. It promotes growth and learning, and recognizes that capacity building and improvement in individual performance leads to better achievement of organizational goals2,' Performance Appraisal, on the other hand, is a process of evaluating employee performance. Performance Management is thus a broader concept than Performance Appraisal. The difference between these concepts as pointed out by the Commission can be understood from the following table:

Table - I

Performance Appraisal vs. Performance Management3

Characteristics Performance Management Performance Appraisal

Types of Objectives Emphasize on integrating organizational, Individual objectives team and individual objectives

Types of Performance Competency requirement as well as Qualitative and Measures quantified measures quantitative

Frequency Continuous review with one or more Annual Appraisal formal reviews in a year

2 Performance Management in Government, Centre for Good Governance, Hyderabad, April, 2009 3 Cited in the Tenth Report of Second Administrative Reforms Commission, p. 231 4

Characteristics Performance Management Performance Appraisal

Rating System Joint or participative process, ratings less Top-down systems with common ratings

Reward Linkage Does not have direct link to rewards Often linked to pay

Ownership Owned by line management Owned by human resource department

Corporate Alignment Integrated business driven system aimed Isolated system, not at organizational and people development linked to organizational goals

Focus of Performance Future focused Focus on past Reviews performance

Questions Asked What can be done to help employees How well was the work perform as effectively as possible? done?

Emphasis On ratings and evaluation On performance planning, analysis, review, development and improvements

Monitoring and Designing By the Personnel/Administration Designed by the Department Personnel/HR department but could be monitored by the respective departments themselves

Identification of At the end of the year At the beginning of the Developmental Needs year

6.1. The Second ARC in its Tenth report had averred that a good employee performance appraisal system is a pre-requisite for an effective performance management system (PMS). It had inter-alia recommended that the Government should expand the scope of the present performance appraisal system of its employees to a comprehensive performance management system. However, while implementing it in Government, PMS should be designed within the overall strategic framework appropriate to the particular Ministry / Department / Organization.

6.2. Consultation paper published by the Centre for Good Governance, Hyderabad in April, 2009 on the topic 'Performance Management in Government' chaired by the former Cabinet Secretary Shri K. M. Chandrasekhar, has recommended PMS on the following lines:

“There is a strong need for a robust performance management system to be introduced in the Government covering all organizations and different levels of functionaries. Time has also come to look at a paradigm shift in ensuring accountability by introducing concepts like service agreements 5

and bringing in the tools of social accountability to involve the citizen also in appraising the performance. The alignment between individual performance and organizational goal is also of utmost importance by introducing an appropriate set of performance indicators.

Measuring performance is useful only when it translates into action. Performance management tools by themselves do not create sustained high performance. It is important to create an environment conducive for effective and efficient performance with a system of rewards and punishment, besides building capacity at all levels of Government to get results.”

VIEWPOINTS OF THE DOPT AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

7. The Committee heard Secretary, DoPT and many experts and stakeholders with regard to performance appraisal. Their views have been summarized below:-

A. DOPT:

(i) On-line system of performance appraisal (SPARROW) has been introduced for the All India Services Officers. Through that the officer files his/her self appraisal and thereafter the Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authorities record remarks on-line, too. After 31st December of each year, the PAR automatically comes back to the Establishment Officer or the Joint Secretary (Establishment) of the concerned Department. Adoption of on-line mode of processing of Performance Appraisal Report has made the system of APAR quite efficient. The IPS and IFoS have already adopted it; other Central Civil Services are also likely to adopt the system. The Government is taking up the matter with all the other cadre controlling authorities of various Central Civil Services and it is expected that they would be adopting the on-line system soon. Making the APAR system on-line will certainly improve the efficacy of the system.

(ii) The Accepting Authority has complete powers to modify the remarks against the officer reported upon; he can expunge any adverse remarks or upgrade the gradings of the officer reported upon. Thereafter, if the officer concerned still remains dissatisfied with the remarks of the Accepting Authority, he/she can approach the Referral Board headed by the Cabinet Secretary as far as the Government of India is concerned. At the State level there is a Referral Board at the level of the Chief Secretary. But the powers of the Referral Board in States are largely limited to rectifying obvious mistakes like calculation of the numerical grading, etc. In case certain remarks are contradictory with the facts which are there either in the self appraisal or in the remarks of the Reporting Officer, those kinds of mistakes can be corrected by the Referral Board. If the officer remains dissatisfied after these two channels, then he/she can file a memorial before the President of India and it goes to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.

(iii) Previously the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) were not disclosed to the officer unless there was something adverse recorded in them by the reviewing officer. However, under the present system the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) need to be disclosed to the officer reported upon. Because of this disclosure, almost ninety percent of the officers are now getting 'outstanding' grades. 6

(iv) SPARROW, a mechanism for on-line filing of PAR, it has been introduced and made mandatory for IAS officers with effect from 21.4.2015 and for IPS and IFoS officers with effect from 1.4.2016 and 23.5.2016, respectively. Directions have also been issued by the DoPT to Cadre Controlling Authorities of services participating in the Central Staffing Scheme (CSS) to adopt on- line filing of PARs.

B. EXPERTS AND STAKEHOLDERS

(v) The APAR is based on performance appraisal and not on performance management (outcomes). The appraisal form focuses on rating of an officer's attributes by the Reporting Officer based on his subjective perception of these. However, the recent trends in employee appraisal focus on competency based appraisal and potential appraisal.

(vi) For making the appraisal process robust which would facilitate decision making about empanelment of an officer, the appraisal form needs to have three parts: (a) Personal characteristics/competencies; (b) Key result areas (KRAs); and (c) Potential appraisal. Potential appraisal is a future-oriented appraisal with the objective to identify and evaluate the potential of the employees to assume higher positions and responsibilities in the organizational hierarchy. The appraisal with the above three parts would provide data for identification of training needs/ higher studies/special courses with a view to optimizing potential (for empanelment) and promotion.

(vii) 360 feedback should be used for development purpose (not for appraisal) at early stages so that the required competencies could be developed with appropriate interventions.

(viii) There can be an institutionalized mechanism for such evaluation once every five years for an officer. These reports can be used for overall development of officers and also for deciding on the suitability of officers for specific assignments. Doing this exercise every year for an officer might not be feasible or warranted considering the resources available with the Government and the value addition to the evaluation process.

(ix) At present, the use of APAR is largely confined to promotion and empanelment purposes. Performance appraisal should be used for overall development of an officer and not just for the purpose of promotion and empanelment. The appraisal system should have functions like (a) Training and Placement; (b) Feedback and Counseling; (c) Planning of Work; (d) Promotion; (e) Recognition; and (f) Strengthening the Governance.

(x) All India Service Officers are cadre-based officers. Whether an officer is found good or bad in the Government of India really does not matter much to that officer unless he is very keen, either for personal reason or for any other reason, to remain in Delhi as there are many officers who simply do not choose to come to Delhi.

(xi) The performance appraisal plays a reduced role in Government sector. The officers know that if one doesn't make it to the Government of India as Secretary or Additional Secretary or Joint Secretary under the Central Staffing Scheme, they can still become Secretary or Principal Secretary or Additional Chief Secretary in the State. Therefore, the nature of appraisal and its relationship 7

to career promotion itself needs to be looked into. As All India Services are governed by All India Services Act, 1951, if a legal provision could be made by making appraisal a condition precedent to career promotion, only then it will receive the kind of seriousness that it deserves, like in the well-managed private sector companies.

(xii) The objectivity which was implicit in the appraisal system prior to APAR method gets lost because of cultural and personal reasons and the appraisal as a precondition for career promotion, has lost its importance. Because of this reason, if 100 per cent is the value of getting promotion from one rank to the other, then, the role of the appraisal should not be assigned more than 30 per cent. The remaining 70 per cent should come from quantitative assessment of the officers' achievements from multi sources.

(xiii) The disclosure of the performance appraisal to the officer should be done away with. Nobody can be expected to be truly objective if his/her assessment is being disclosed to the person concerned, because of fear of strain in personal relationship between the reviewing officer and officer reported upon. If some amount of sanctity is to be brought back to the PAR, not disclosing the whole assessment of reviewing officer to the officer reported upon, would be better.

(xiv) The present system of 360 degree evaluation is improvement over the previous one. However, there is an element of subjectivity in this process. Also there would be an element of fear as peer and subordinates will also be consulted under 360 degree evaluation. The 360 degree evaluation system which overrides the assessment based on APAR system needs to be transparent. Officers not recommended by the 360 degree evaluation panel should be told the reason and they should get a chance to represent before the empanelment decision is finalized.

(xv) There is a need for a comprehensive performance management. Goals must be identified, certain systems should be in place to measure the performance and at the end, achievement should be evaluated against the goals set. The appraisal should be made more comprehensive to include peer review and stakeholder review. This would ensure a more objective and comprehensive 360 degree assessment in contrast to the present informal methodology adopted for a 360 degree review. Also, the areas of interest and competence along with the reporting and reviewing officers' assessment of the suitability of the officers for the empanelment purposes should be a part of the APAR over a period of five years.

(xvi) In the performance appraisal process followed in the Armed Forces, the immediate reviewing officer shows his assessment to the officer reported upon upto a certain rank. For example, if the reviewing officer is Brigadier, he/she shows the officer reported upon the pen picture and the comments given to the latter's grading. Beyond the level of Brigadier, when it goes to the General, what the General gives is not told to the officer reported upon. So, the problem of downgrading or giving fewer points and, having problems in the working space do not arise actually in the Army. The same could be applied in the civil services.

(xvii) A portion of the APAR should be designed which should include a SWOT (Strength Weakness Opportunity and Threat) analysis of the officer, future career path and areas of improvement. This 8

portion shouldn't be used for promotion purposes but only for career direction, training needs of officers. Similarly for the Heads of Offices, Departments etc., even the public delivery part of the functioning and staff welfare aspects should be assessed.

(xviii) Some sort of continuous assessment should be done once in a quarter to see how the officer is performing with reference to the set work plan and also to see if the work plan needs to be amended.

(xix) Every rating should be justified. Further, there should be a normalization of grading across Services for the purposes of deciding benchmarks and inter se comparisons. This can be done either by percentile method or normalization through a multiplication index.

(xx) Two outer extremes should not be taken into consideration while averaging the past ten years performance for empanelment and selections. This will ensure that (i) officers who are victimized by unfairly harsh evaluation by a reporting officer will not suffer, and (ii) officers benefited by unusually liberal grading will not get undue edge.

(xxi) Two tools of appraisal and empanelment are important not only from the point of view of the careers of officers of the Civil Services but also to ensure good governance and effective administration. Therefore, while reviewing the effectiveness of these tools, a holistic view should be taken to ensure that the appraisal and the empanelment processes bring out the true picture of the officers being reviewed for promotion and empanelment.

(xxii) There is a need to improve the computerized database for better monitoring and scrutiny of APAR submission process. The on-line software called SPARROW, designed and implemented by DoPT with the help of NIC, can be further upgraded to ensure effective performance management.

OBSERVATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

STRICT ADHERENCE OF TIMELINE FOR WRITING APAR

8.0. The Committee observes that in the respective PAR Rules, specific schedule for completion has been prescribed. For each stage a deadline has also been given. Subsequent to implementation of AIS (PAR) Rules, 2007, with the objective to ensure transparency and compliance of prescribed timelines at various stages of completion of PAR, on-line filing of PAR has been made mandatory for AIS officers. There is, however, considerable delay in the writing of appraisal reports, even though there are instructions specifying cut off dates for different stages in the reporting process. This often leads to delay in promotion and empanelment of the concerned officers. All the non-IAS Civil Services Associations who appeared before the Committee have stated that their empanelment is often delayed because of procedural hurdles, one of which is delay in writing of their appraisal reports and the other is delay in vigilance clearance.

8.1. The Committee notes that the introduction of an on-line filing system of PAR (SPARROW) in respect of All India Services has been a major step in this direction and it has considerably resolved the problem of delay. As informed by the Department of Personnel and Training, a similar mode is likely to be introduced in respect of Central Government Group 'A' Services. The 9

Committee wishes that on-line system for filing of PAR on the lines of SPARROW should be implemented for all Central Services without further delay so as to overcome the problem of non-completion of PAR in time. The Committee also impresses upon the Government that all the Cadre Controlling Authorities must be instructed to ensure strict adherence to the timeline for writing of APAR at all the levels. Responsibility may also be fixed on officers who fail to adhere to the stipulated timelines. PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF PAR 9. The Committee notes that in the wake of Dev Dutt Judgment, the entire Appraisal Report is now required to be disclosed. It has been observed that the Reporting Officers have become quite reluctant to record honestly the weakness of the officer reported upon, either in a spirit of camaraderie or not to upset the apple cart. As a result, more than ninety percent of officers are now getting outstanding gradings. The Committee feels that this trend of inflated gradings is defeating the very purpose of the appraisal system as it leads to difficulty in finding out outstanding officers with impeccable integrity and weeding out the incompetent ones. The appraisal being a precondition for career progression appears to have lost its importance and this has compelled the Government to supplement the process of PAR with new tools like Multi Source Feedback (360 degree appraisal) for the limited purpose of empanelment. 9.1. The Committee favours that the appraisal process should be consultative and transparent but it also appreciates the difficulty for anyone to be truly objective if his/her assessment is to be disclosed to the person reported upon. The Committee recommends that some amount of sanctity should be brought back to the appraisal system by devising a system of appraisal wherein not the entire report is disclosed to the appraisee, but there is a partial disclosure only. The Committee, therefore, desires that the Government should look into the aspect of limited disclosure, somewhere between the ACR and APAR so as to retain best of both the procedures. 360 Degree Appraisal needs to be Transparent and backed by Rules 10. The Committee notes that the 360 degree appraisal system is a new innovation of the Government for appointment of bureaucrats at the top level in Central Government. The system inter-alia includes assessing bureaucrats on integrity and reputation, through a comprehensive background check, before their empanelment. The second ARC in its tenth Report had, however, cautioned as under: “In the context of India where strong hierarchal structures exist and for historical and social reasons it may not be possible to introduce this system unless concerns of integrity and transparency are addressed.” 10.1. In view of the above, the Committee recommends that the entire process should be transparent and rule based. The Government should frame guidelines on the entire aspects of the process of 360 degree appraisal and it should be notified. TOWARDS PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 11. The Committee while endorsing the views of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission on the need for a paradigm shift from Performance Appraisal based approach to Performance Management based approach, recommends that the Government should put on wheels the recommendations of the Second ARC in this regard, without delay. 10

CHAPTER - II

EMPANELMENT UNDER CENTRAL STAFFING SCHEME

12. Empanelment is the process of selecting officers for their placement at the top management level of the Government of India. Through empanelment a pool of officers from the All India Services and the Central Group 'A' services is created for their appointment at the levels of Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary and Secretary to the Government of India under the Central Staffing Scheme (CSS). Thus, appointment of an officer to such positions involves two steps (i) empanelment; and (ii) selection from the panel. The Guidelines issued by the Government for empanelment and for Experts Panel for evaluation of officers for empanelment as Additional Secretary / Secretary are placed at 'Annexure-II'. The Committee has also been informed that guidelines for Experts Panel for evaluation of officers for empanelment as Additional Secretary / Secretary mutatis mutandis apply to Joint Secretary level empanelment also.

CENTRAL STAFFING SCHEME

13. Central Staffing Scheme (CSS) inter-alia enumerates the procedures for empanelment to hold senior positions under the Government of India and is governed by executive orders and not by any statutory Rules. The Scheme is primarily governed by DoPT O.M. No. 36/77/94-EO(SM-I), dated 5th January, 1996. Presently there are 37 participating services (Annexure – III) under the scheme, including the three All India Services (IAS, IPS and IFoS). The services of officers from the participating Group 'A' services having diverse backgrounds are obtained for a specified period on deputation. On completion of the tenure, such officers return to their parent cadre, which also in turn stands benefitted in the process by the exposure officers get at the Centre. Thus, the two-way movement is a mutual benefit to the service cadres and also the Government of India and the State Governments.

BODIES ENTRUSTED WITH THE WORK OF EMPANELMENT

14. In the present system of Empanelment, the following bodies/authorities are involved:

(i) Experts Panel : An Experts Panel (EP) comprising of retired Secretaries to the Government of India is constituted for each service that goes through the Performance Appraisal Reports (PARs) of the shortlisted batches/officers and they moderate the gradings, if required. With the introduction of 360 degree appraisal in 2015, the Experts Panel (EP), apart from looking at the PAR dossiers of the officer, also talk to people under whom that officer has worked, viz - subordinates, peers, or even stakeholders who may have a say or who came in contact with the officer. For any officer, the EP talks to a minimum of five persons, and it looks into five or six parameters, namely, (i) integrity, (ii) behavioral competencies, (iii) functional skills, (iv) domain expertise, (v) delivery, and (vi) potential. They give their recommendations based on the remarks which they receive from those five persons. Thereafter, looking at the past performance records, Multi Source Feedback (MSF) and other information like vigilance status, the EP makes a recommendation about an officer.

10 11

(ii) Civil Services Board (CSB): The CSB is constituted under General Service Rules (GSR), 1967. It comprises of the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary (Personnel), Establishment Officer and one Secretary to the Government of India. The CSB processes the recommendations of the EP for the appointment of Joint Secretaries, before finally being sent to the ACC.

(iii) Special Committee of Secretaries: In case of empanelment of Additional Secretary or Secretary the recommendations of the EP are further processed by the 'Special Committee of Secretaries', which is also headed by the Cabinet Secretary before being sent to the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) for final approval.

(iv) Establishment Officer (EO): EO is an officer of the status of Additional Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Personnel and Training. The EO is the Secretary to the ACC and Member-Secretary of CSB and thus plays an important role in facilitating these bodies in appointment and empanelment of officers at the top management level in the Government of India.

(v) Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC): The Cabinet Committee on Appointment (known as the ACC) is constituted under Rule 6(1) of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. The ACC takes final decisions on recommendations relating to appointment of JS and above level officers in the Central Government and on proposals for the empanelment of officers of different services covered by the Central Staffing Scheme.

(vi) Review Experts Panel - Review Experts Panel (REP) carries out another independent MSF for those officers who are not empanelled. That panel takes inputs from twice the number of stakeholders that are different from those spoken to by the Experts Panel. The DoPT in their written submission to the query of the Committee as to whether the officers who have outstanding grades in APAR but who are not empanelled, are communicated the negative remarks in 360 degree appraisal, has inter alia submitted that specific reasons for non empanelment are not communicated to the officers concerned. Further, the findings of Experts Panel and Review Experts Panel usually match but corrections are carried out wherever necessary in certain cases, by the REP.

15. The views of Secretary, DoPT, experts and various stakeholders with regard to Empanelment have been summarized below:-

A. DoPT

(i) In the traditional system of empanelment, there was a Committee and ACR dossiers were circulated to each Committee member wherein they rate the officer as 'very good', 'good' or 'average'. If the officer used to get four 'very good', he would be empanelled as Joint Secretary. In the present system, which started in the year 2009, there is an Experts Panel (EP) which comprises retired Secretaries to the Government of India or those who have retired from the Secretary's scale. This Experts Panel is constituted for each service. All the panel members sit together and the Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) dossier is presented before them. They go through the PAR dossier and they may also change the 12

grading, if required. Thereafter, cumulative averages of the PARs of the officers are calculated and the recommendations of the Experts Panel (EP) are sent to the ACC, for obtaining the approval of the latter.

(ii) A new system of Multi Source Feedback (MSF) was introduced in 2015. The Experts Panel (EP) which is constituted for empanelment purposes, apart from looking into the PAR dossier of the officer, also talk to people under whom that officer has worked, subordinates, peers, or even stakeholders who had a say or who came in contact with the officer. For any officer, the EP talks to a minimum of five persons, and they look into five or six parameters, namely, (i) integrity, (ii) behavioral competencies, (iii) functional skills, (iv) domain expertise, (v) delivery, and (vi) potential. This system is often called 360 degree appraisal. They give their recommendations based on the remarks which they receive from those five persons. Thereafter, looking at the past performance records, Multi Source Feedback (MSF) and other information like vigilance status, the EP makes a recommendation about an officer. In the case of Joint Secretary, that recommendation is placed before the 'Civil Services Board' headed by the Cabinet Secretary and in the case of Additional Secretary or Secretary; the recommendations are placed before the 'Special Committee of Secretaries', which, again, is headed by the Cabinet Secretary. These Committees, either the Civil Services Board or the Special Committee of Secretaries, make their recommendations to the ACC which approves or disapproves the empanelment of the officers.

(iii) The provision for disclosure of APARs of IAS started in 2007 and for other Services, it started in 2008. As a result of that, there is a tendency to give very good remarks to the officers reported upon because they know that the officer concerned is going to see those remarks. There is a general reluctance to write unpleasant things.

(iv) For empanelment, there are no rules. The Central Staffing Scheme itself does not have any rule to support that. It is governed through guidelines. The Experts Panel too is constituted with the approval of the ACC.

(v) Officers are not empanelled domain-wise. However, there have been recommendations of various committees to empanel officers domain-wise. This is yet to be accepted and implemented, but while posting the officers, the domain expertise is considered.

B. EXPERTS AND STAKEHOLDERS

(vi) For empanelment for senior positions, leadership and emotional intelligence competencies and resilience are of utmost importance, as evidenced by research. There are broadly three categories of competencies which are required for senior leadership: (a) functional (domain specific); (b) administrative; and (c) behavioral competencies. Of these, the functional competencies need to be identified by the time the officer reaches Dy. Secretary/Director level so that he can gain mastery over a functional area for which he could be considered for empanelment in the future. This will provide a cadre of specialists within a service (which is not technical) who could be considered with officers of the same domain specialty for a specific position for empanelment. 13

(vii) The empanelment process reviews the ACRs/APARs for a specific period. If an officer was pursuing higher studies or acquiring additional skills, no weightage is given for it in the empanelment, instead, the officer is required to wait for some more years to acquire more ACRs/APARs. Thus, the advanced knowledge and skills acquired are not optimally utilized as the officer is required to work with the existing practices. Under-utilization of new learning and absence of talent management is de-motivating for the officers as seniority plays an important role.

(viii) The Government of India, while thinking about improvement of its own officers in the Central Secretariat, should also be thinking about the officers working in the States. There have been instances in many States where successive Chief Secretaries have never been empanelled in the Government of India. They were not found fit for empanelment in the Central Secretariat, although, they managed to reach to the level of Chief Secretaries in the States. If somebody is not empanelled in the Government of India, he/she feels somewhat diminished. Therefore, the States also feel as if they were carrying the dregs left out by the Government of India.

(ix) Empanelment applications may be invited from all officers of required seniority working in States, other Central services and also independently drawing from available officers with requisite qualifications and experience and then scrutinizing the same through a Committee comprising civil servants, subject matter specialists from IIM, IIT, Economic Institutions of eminence, etc. Officers having requisite domain knowledge, cannot be assessed merely on the basis of their appraisal which is the current system, but also through a Committee and if necessary through an interview.

(x) Empanelment process was introduced in 1970, to ensure only best officers, irrespective of their service/cadre, compete for appointment in the Central Government. However, in practice, it has become another instrument to ensure that officers from non-IAS services are kept out. This was done by slowing down the empanelment for non-IAS services. It is pertinent to mention that currently no member of IRS (Customs and Central Excise) is posted as Joint Secretary or above levels in the Central Government.

(xi) The eligibility for being considered for empanelment at the Joint Secretary level for all Central Services is seventeen years of service in Group 'A' and officer should be drawing pay in the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG). For the AIS, however, the appointment of at least one officer of the batch of that service in any State cadre in the Senior Administrative Grade entitle all officers of that batch to be considered for empanelment. Thus, while an AIS officer even without actually being promoted to the SAG, can get empanelled as Joint Secretary, officers of Central Services have to await actual promotion to the SAG.

(xii) Successive Central Pay Commissions, Administrative Reforms Commissions, and Other Committees viz. Surendra Nath Committee have been recommending that for selection to SAG/HAG level posts, all officers who are already in the SAG/HAG levels, respectively in their own cadre, including those who have been given the scale non-functionally on personal 14

basis should be eligible. The Seventh CPC recommended that all officers who have put in seventeen years of service should be considered eligible for Joint Secretary level posts. However, such recommendations have not been implemented.

(xiii) IRS(C&CE) cadre has been facing challenges in their seniority list at the entry level for almost thirty years due to disputes on inter-se seniority amongst feeder cadres which have reached CAT/Courts for adjudication. As a result, the promotions of even the officers recruited through the Civil Services Exam are provisional on ad-hoc basis though against regular posts. However, all these promotions to SAG and above levels are made following the same process as in the case of regular promotions i.e. DPC by UPSC and the approval of ACC. While the DoPT has no objection to empanelling such officers promoted to Junior Administrative Grade or NFSG of JAG on ad-hoc basis at Deputy Secretary/Director level, the same ad-hoc promotion in SAG is being treated as a barrier for empanelment as Joint Secretary and above.

(xiv) Even if the Central Services Officers are empanelled for SAG (JS level posts), they are rarely given posting. Even the entry barrier for Secretary level empanelment is high for them (2 years gap to last IAS batch empanelled as Secretary with at least 1 year remaining service). Two officers of IRS(C&CE) got empanelled as Secretary level in 2016, but none has been picked up for the posting.

(xv) The Central Services are being evaluated by the Central Government and UPSC at every stage of promotion. The APARs of Central Services are seen by UPSC for promotion to JAG level onwards, while the SAG and above level promotions take place only with the ACC approval. Therefore, another empanelment process for Central Services would appear to be a redundant process with duplication of work. At the time of their promotion to SAG/Joint Secretary and above levels itself, the ACC should maintain a panel of officers adjudged suitable for JS/AS and Secretary level posts out of the select list for promotions as waitlisted. This would cut down an unnecessary process and reduce delays to considerable extent in empanelment process of members of Central services.

(xvi) Lack of parity in career progression is having a huge impact on the Central Civil Services' Training Academies like National Academy of Customs, Excise and Narcotics (NACEN). In the last three years, every year about twenty plus officers quit the service during training and in some cases after training. Such artificial denial of parity and career progression leads to demoralization of the officers in service, which in the long run affects their performance adversely.

(xvii) There is a need for some more transparency in the empanelment process. In case the Committee on 360 degree review finds an officer unfit for empanelment, the said officer would come to know only when his name does not figure in the empanelment list. So, before the stage of empanelment, the concerned officer should get a chance to represent his case, if he has not been found fit by the 360-degree review committee. 15

(xviii) The practice of holding up IPS empanelment for obvious purpose of maintaining edge to the IAS officers should be strongly discouraged. If the intention of the Government is to maintain inter-service parity, it should be applied in reverse as well, which means simultaneous empanelment of the same batches of IAS and IPS and a freeze on empanelment of the next batch until the backlog is cleared in IPS.

(xix) The Seventh Central Pay Commission recommendations (by majority) regarding empanelment at the Joint Secretary Level may be accepted. In accordance with the majority view of the Seventh CPC, after seventeen years of Service, officers from various Services should be allowed to compete through an open competitive process and get empanelled into specific domains based on their background and aptitude, and stay in their domains for the rest of their careers for the purposes of selection to the posts in the Ministries/Departments. Actual selection should be made through a transparent and objective process, providing level playing field to all the empanelled officers, irrespective of their Service background.

(xx) Since the promotions in different Services are taking place at different times, for JS empanelment, there should be uniform criteria for empanelment amongst participating services under Central Staffing Scheme (CSS).

(xxi) There should be parity amongst various Services in empanelment and selection for posts at senior levels in the Government of India. The additional eligibility condition of two years differential between IAS and other Services for empanelment for Additional Secretary and Secretary under Central Staffing Scheme, as mentioned in GOI OM No. 36/15/2001- EO(SM-1) dated 25.07.2001, be directed to be dropped with immediate effect, as it is arbitrary, discriminatory and unfair, which has prevented the members of other Services from being empanelled and posted as Secretary and Additional Secretary to Government of India, and henceforth empanelment of officers of the same batch, irrespective of service affiliation, may be ensured.

(xxii) While there are 37 Participating Services under Central Staffing Scheme, there is no justification for predominantly selecting from one particular Service. A cap of 25% should be imposed for a single Service for posts at the level of Joint Secretary and above in the Central Government;

(xxiii) The Civil Services Board should be more representative and there should not be more than two members from a single Service. The Screening Committee of Secretaries (SCoS) be reconstituted to accommodate some members from Services other than the IAS, so as to end the monopoly of one particular Service.

(xxiv) The Establishment Officer (EO), who is always an IAS Officer, should not be from any particular Service successively, i.e. it should be on rotational basis. After an officer from a particular Service is appointed, that particular Service should not be considered for next appointment for next two years. The Form for applying for the offer list should be modified to give proper opportunity to all Services to describe their portfolios. 16

(xxv) The assignment of domains should be a part of the empanelment process at the JS/AS levels. Officers applying for empanelment should indicate the domain they wish to be assigned. Consideration of their request by the empanelling body should be done taking into account their existing domain expertise, academic background, experience, training courses undergone, with an appropriate weightage for each parameter.

(xxvi) Instead of present practice of one time empanelment of officers at the JS, AS or Secretary Level, every year, based on the anticipated vacancy of JS and above levels, the Government should advertise the vacancies and invite willingness directly from officers. The empanelment of only these willing officers should be processed. The empanelment of officers shall be batch-wise, together, of all Services (in place of present practice of considering all officers of a batch of a service separately) and the Chief Secretary of their respective State/UT should be made responsible for providing all required documents, clearances etc. within the stipulated time. This will save considerable time, energy and resources of the country, including tax payers' money.

(xxvii) Promotion and empanelment are different in nature. Empanelment is generally misunderstood as promotion but Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India has repeatedly clarified that empanelment should be considered not as a reflection of the intrinsic merit or otherwise of an officer but the suitability of an officer to occupy senior levels in the Central Government. Empanelment does not affect the promotion of the officers in their own cadre in the All India Services and Central Services Group 'A'. In fact, promotion of the officers to the same grade in their own cadre is a precondition for consideration of the officers for empanelment at the corresponding level.

(xxviii) The training and service exposure and experience of IAS officers absolutely match these requirements, much more than any other Service. IAS officers have an important coordinating, multi-functional, integrating and leadership role in the administrative framework of the country, with wide experience of working across various levels in diverse areas in both the Central and State Governments, which is unique to the IAS. An IAS officer gets an unequalled opportunity of participating in planning and implementation of developmental programmes at various levels from Block to the Centre, working with the Panchayati Raj Institutions, providing leadership from the beginning of their career and coordinating the activities of Government Departments in the district and the sub-division, heading various departments of the State Government, conducting elections and managing disaster and relief distribution. The career trajectory of an IAS officer, therefore, ensures that he/she picks up the critical decision making abilities and leadership qualities, so very essential for performing the functions of senior management in the Central Government. In comparison, the officers of Central Services are usually confined to a single department and move up only in the line hierarchy of their own Department for the majority of their career span.

(xxix) The concept of the All India Services is rooted in the continuous flow of officers from the field level in the States to policy (and operational) levels at the Centre and vice-versa. It is 17

for this reason that the Central Deputation Reserve (CDR) for the All India Services has been fixed at max 40% of Senior Duty Posts. Whereas, in contrast, the Deputation Reserve (not CDR) for Central Group 'A' Services are kept at maximum 5%.

(xxx) The key concept behind the Central Staffing Scheme is that officers bring experience and knowledge garnered from the field into policy making positions in GOI and take back the policy experience gained in GOI to the State. Consequently, it would not be reasonable to expect persons from the Central Services whose expertise is restricted in a single domain to stake equal claim to all Joint Secretary level posts under the CSS.

(xxxi) Regarding the two years edge in empanelment, the Sixth CPC noted that the gap between empanelment of IAS officers and empanelment of officers of Group 'A' Central Services had increased well beyond two years. The Sixth CPC thought it appropriate to reduce this gap to a maximum two years. While GOI issued orders regarding Non Functional Upgradation (NFU) on the lines recommended by the 6th CPC and retained the gap at two years for NFU and empanelment, it did not allow Group 'A' Services to be empanelled at SAG level on the basis of NFU. In other words, the stipulation that officers of organized Group 'A' Services should have got SAG scale in their parent cadre on substantive basis for being eligible for empanelment as Joint Secretary in GOI was not relaxed. Grounds for parity with IAS are also not tenable for reasons elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Mohan Kumar Singhania case. The two-year edge for empanelment for IAS under CSS, therefore, cannot be questioned on grounds of equity or fair play.

(xxxii) An IAS officer, who is a general administrator par-excellence, acquires knowledge of at least a dozen domains over 30 years and to force fit such officers into 2 or 3 domains for empanelment does not do justice to their multi-skill profile. A fair degree of specialization also occurs during the career progression of IAS officers, and to label them simply as "generalists" does not do justice to their rich experience and complex profile.

REPRESENTATION OF VARIOUS STATES IN THE EMPANELMENT

16.0. Indian Administrative Service (IAS) is a cadre based service. The incumbents of this service render their services in the cadre/State allotted to them and they come on deputation to the Central Secretariat under Central Staffing Scheme. During the course of examination of the subject the Committee was apprised by some States that their IAS officers are not being given due representation in the empanelment of JS and above level posts at the Centre. As per the Central Staffing Scheme OM, the raison d'etre of Central Staffing Scheme is that the Centre is benefited from the fresh inputs at senior levels in policy planning, formulation of policy and implementation of programmes from diverse experience in field brought by the officers drawn from various State cadres and on return to their respective cadres at the end of tenure, they benefit their respective States from the experience and the exposure gained by such officers in policy making at the Centre. This two-way movement is of mutual benefit to the States and the Government of India. Thus, according to them, by denying appropriate representation to the States/Cadres, they are deprived of the benefits of the scheme. 18

16.1. The DoPT has provided the State/Cadre-wise list of IAS officers empanelled for JS level during last five years (2012-17) and Additional Secretary/Secretary levels posts from 2013-17 and the same is appended at Annexure- IV of the report.

16.2. On perusal of the Annexure IV, as mentioned in the above para regarding empanelment at JS level posts during last five years (2012-17), it is observed that from the States like Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh about 13 and 11 percent of their respective sanctioned strength have been empanelled for JS level posts, whereas, from the States of Telengana and Uttarakhand only 2 and 3 per cent of their sanctioned strength of officers respectively has been empanelled during the same duration. Disproportionate representation is also noticed in certain other cadres as is depicted in the Table-II below. Thus, it is evident that various States are not getting their due representation in the empanelment, in proportion to their sanctioned strength.

Table - II

State/Cadre-wise empanelment of JS level IAS officers with respect to their sanctioned strength during 2012-17

Sl. No. State Cadre Total Sanctioned Officers empanelled Percentage Strength (as on for JS during empanelment 01.01.2016) 2012-17 with respect to Sanctioned Strength

12 3 4 5

1. Andhra Pradesh 211 24 11 %

2. AGMUT 337 30 9 %

3. Assam-Meghalaya 263 22 8 %

4. Bihar 342 18 5 %

5. Chhattisgarh 178 12 7 %

6. Gujarat 297 16 5 %

7. Haryana 205 13 6 %

8. Himachal Pradesh 147 11 7 %

9. Jammu and Kashmir 137 9 7 %

10. Jharkhand 215 12 6 %

11. Karnataka 314 15 5 %

12. Kerala 231 18 8 %

13. Madhya Pradesh 417 41 9 % 19

12 3 4 5

14. Maharashtra 361 46 13 %

15. Manipur-Tripura 206 12 6 %

16. Nagaland 94 5 5 %

17. Odisha 237 25 11 %

18. Punjab 221 23 10 %

19. Rajasthan 296 29 10 %

20. Sikkim 48 4 8 %

21. Tamil Nadu 376 35 9 %

22. Telangana 163 3 2 %

23. Uttarakhand 120 3 3 %

24. 621 37 6 %

25. West Bengal 359 17 5 %

TOTAL 6396 480 -

17. The Committee in the course of its deliberations considered the concerns of the stakeholders, mainly Associations of the respective services which have been summarized in the above paras. In addition, the Committee also had an opportunity to look into the prevalent practice and departures made from the established practice and procedures in recent years. Successive paras of the report deal with such issues as also incorporate observations/suggestions of the Committee.

OBSERVATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

ROLE AND RELEVANCE OF THE EMPANELMENT PROCESS

18.0. The Committee notes the concerns raised by various stakeholders that the empanelment under the Central Staffing Scheme is not providing a level playing field to all participating services, especially the non-IAS services and all the institutions/bodies involved in the empanelment and appointment process of JS and above level posts under the Government of India, predominantly comprise of officers of only one service, namely IAS. This is perceived by non-IAS services to tilt the balance in favor of IAS in the empanelment and placement process. The Committee feels there is a need to make the process broad based by associating officers of other services also in the empanelment and placement process for appointment to the posts of Joint Secretary and above and recommends that majority of officers in Civil Services Board, Experts panel and Special Committees of Secretaries should not belong to any one service.

18.1. The Committee gathers from the written submissions and the depositions made by the Cabinet Secretaries, present as well as the former, Secretary, DoPT, officers and the associations 20 of various services that empanelment is the process of selecting officers for their appointment at the top management level of Government of India. This is done by creating a pool of officers from the All India Services and the Central Group 'A' services participating in the Central Staffing Service. This system was introduced way back in 1970 with a view to draw best officers from the All India Services as well as other central services possessing proved capability, having diverse backgrounds, to be the part of top management level in running the affairs in the country. The system is time tested and has proved its worth. It is primarily governed by DOPT O.M. No. 36/77/94-EO(SM-I), dated 5th January, 1996. Surprisingly, it continues to be governed by the guidelines under this order which have undergone changes from time to time for more than four and half decades without having any statutory backup. It has given the impression in the minds of the certain services that the system does not give equal treatment to various services as it appears to be heavily tilted towards IAS. This apprehension needs to be allayed. The Committee, therefore, urges the Government to address this concern by taking suitable measures.

MAKING EMPANELMENT PROCESS MORE TRANSPARENT

19.0. As has been deliberated in the foregoing paras of the report, performance appraisal is critical to empanelment process. Despite the fact that empanelment is not a promotion, the assessment of the officers is primarily based on the gradings they earn in their PARs. Present system of performance appraisal has posed challenges before the authorities in the empanelment process and very high grading scores earned by a large number of officers has compelled the Government to resort to supplement the Performance Appraisal system by Multi Source Feedback (360 degree assessment). The 360 degree assessment also intends to capture the qualities of officers in terms of integrity, capability and general reputation based on the feedback received from various stakeholders, which the PAR system fails to gather.

19.1. The Committee also takes note of the observation of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission on the implementation of 360 degree appraisal in India. The Commission inter-alia had suggested as under:

“In the context of India where strong hierarchal structures exist and for historical and social reasons it may not be possible to introduce this system unless concerns of integrity and transparency are addressed. However, it is suggested that Government may consider sensitizing officers at all levels about the importance of this feedback mechanism and its possible use in understanding their behavior and their ability to relate to others.

19.2. The Committee finds the present 360 degree appraisal system opaque, non-transparent and subjective as the concerns of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission have not been suitably addressed. Feedback in this process is obtained informally, making the process susceptible to being manipulated. Further, the feedback received from subordinates and stakeholders may be biased and lack objectivity, particularly if the officer had to discipline his subordinates or he was unable to meet the unjustified demands of stakeholders. Further, acting on feedbacks so received puts the concerned officer in a disadvantageous position as the remedies available to 21 him in case his APAR/ACR has not been written objectively are not available to him in this process. Acting on such feedback behind the back of the officer may not be legally tenable, particularly if it adversely affects his empanelment prospects. Moreover, there is no statutory backing to the scheme and it is based on executive instructions only. The Committee, therefore, impresses upon the Government to take necessary steps to make the process of empanelment more objective, transparent and fair.

CLASSIFICATION OF POSTS ON THE BASIS OF DOMAIN-KNOWLEDGE

20.0. Seventh Central Pay Commission in its report has stated that:

“Given the complexities of modern day governance, the existing system of generalists manning senior policy making positions and shifting from one field to another in short spans of time, is considered not just outmoded but inimical to effective policy making. Therefore, the selection of officers with the requisite domain knowledge, with sufficient experience in the given field, and with sufficient length of balance service, would ensure that each sector gets not only the right person to head it but also the required stability and long term vision.”

20.1. The Committee recommends that Government should classify their entire SAG/Joint Secretary level posts according to their functional domains and officers possessing required domain knowledge and experience in the field should only be appointed in those positions. It would be desirable that the empanelment may be done by inviting applications for the empanelment at SAG/Joint Secretary and above level posts from interested and eligible persons of AIS and Central Services possessing domain expertise prescribed for the post. This will also create a healthy competition among various participating services and will bring best among them.

PROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATION FOR STATES/CADRES

21. In the course of examination, the Committee noted that while some States/Cadres are not getting their due representation in the list of empanelled officers, whereas some other are over represented. As per the State/Cadre-wise figures provided by the DoPT, IAS officers empanelled for JS level during the last five years (2012-17), from some States like Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra the total empanelment has respectively been 11 and 13 per cent of their sanctioned strength whereas for cadres like Telengana and Uttarakhand it is only 2 and 3 per cent respectively of their sanctioned strength of IAS officers. One of the motives behind the Central Staffing Scheme is that the officers empanelled and appointed in the Central Secretariat when return to their home cadres, they benefit the States through the experience gained at the Centre. Hence, the States stand to benefit from the officers empanelled from their State cadres. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Government must ensure that all State cadres must get over a period of time due representation in the empanelment, which may broadly be proportionate to sanctioned strength of IAS officers in various cadres.

CREATION OF 'SECRETARY EQUIVALENT' POSTS IS NOT A HEALTHY TREND

22. The Committee during its deliberation on the subject has noted that the number of officers empanelled is invariably much larger than that of posts available. This leads to pressures to 22 create large number of posts, just to accommodate empanelled officers. There have been many instances where large numbers of Secretary/AS equivalent posts are created to accommodate those who are not appointed as Secretary/AS. This is not a healthy practice as it affects the command structure in the hierarchy. Thus, it is recommended that such a practice of creation of Secretary/AS equivalent posts may be stopped immediately.

CLUBBING OF BATCHES

23.0. In the course of deliberations, the Committee learnt that in the recent past during the empanelment process, batches have been bunched and it has been alleged that this has led to superseding of officers of the senior batches by their juniors. The DoPT in their written replies on this issue have stated that recently 1984 and 1985 batches of IAS officers for Secretary level and 1987 and 1988 batches of IAS officers for AS level posts have been empanelled simultaneously. This has been done to ensure that officers who are appointed as AS/Secretary have longer tenures. Lately, the officers of AS/Secretary Level have been getting less time before their superannuation. Further, the DoPT has also informed that the batches which have been clubbed have not been superseded by their junior batches.

23.1. The Committee observes that clubbing of batches is not only a deviation from the established procedure but also gives undue advantage to junior batches clubbed with a senior batch. Continuance of such practice will demotivate the officers of senior batches as they may feel deprived of the opportunities due to them. It has potential of leaving out many meritorious and deserving officer from being empanelled and thus being unfair and discriminatory to them, as also violating the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Moreover, such a practice creates uncertainties and insecurity in the system and may give rise to pulls and pressures. This ultimately shall adversely impact governance and is not advisable.

23.2. The Committee is unable to appreciate the rationale offered by the Department that the clubbing of batches has been done to ensure longer tenures for officers at the levels of Additional Secretary/Secretary. The Committee notes that the Government had earlier provided a minimum tenure to Cabinet Secretary, Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Director (IB), Secretary, RAW and Director (CBI) by allowing them to be in service beyond the age of superannuation, if so required, to complete the minimum tenure. The Committee therefore is of the view that if intention is to provide a longer tenure to the officers of the level of Additional Secretary/Secretary, other options are available to the Government and for that clubbing is not necessary. The Committee does not approve clubbing of batches merely to provide longer tenures for which other options are available to the Government. The Committee, therefore, advises the Government to refrain from clubbing of batches in future.

CREATION OF INDEPENDENT BODY FOR EMPANELMENT

24. The Committee went through the views of the Government, various Service Associations that appeared before the Committee; the recommendations of the Sixth and Seventh Central Pay Commissions commenting on this issue; the recommendation of the Second Administrative 23

Reforms Commission (2008) recommending creation of an independent body for empanelment and appointment process. In order to provide legal sanctity and acceptance of the empanelment process as transparent and fair, the Committee recommends constitution of an independent body, specifically constituted for the purpose, having statutory backing for empanelment. In this body, all the work of Experts panel, Civil Services Board and 'Committee of Secretaries' may be subsumed. The body may send its recommendations for empanelment to the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) for approval. This would be a full time permanent body whose members should be appointed by the President and the body may consist of eminent persons drawn from Government, Business, Academia, etc. 24

RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS—AT A GLANCE

STRICT ADHERENCE OF TIMELINE FOR WRITING APAR

The Committee observes that in the respective PAR Rules, specific schedule for completion has been prescribed. For each stage a deadline has also been given. Subsequent to implementation of AIS (PAR) Rules, 2007, with the objective to ensure transparency and compliance of prescribed timelines at various stages of completion of PAR, on-line filing of PAR has been made mandatory for AIS officers. There is, however, considerable delay in the writing of appraisal reports, even though there are instructions specifying cut off dates for different stages in the reporting process. This often leads to delay in promotion and empanelment of the concerned officers. All the non-IAS Civil Services Associations who appeared before the Committee have stated that their empanelment is often delayed because of procedural hurdles, one of which is delay in writing of their appraisal reports and the other is delay in vigilance clearance. [Para 8.0.]

The Committee notes that the introduction of an on-line filing system of PAR (SPARROW) in respect of All India Services has been a major step in this direction and it has considerably resolved the problem of delay. As informed by the Department of Personnel and Training, a similar mode is likely to be introduced in respect of Central Government Group 'A' Services. The Committee wishes that on-line system for filing of PAR on the lines of SPARROW should be implemented for all Central Services without further delay so as to overcome the problem of non-completion of PAR in time. The Committee also impresses upon the Government that all the Cadre Controlling Authorities must be instructed to ensure strict adherence to the timeline for writing of APAR at all the levels. Responsibility may also be fixed on officers who fail to adhere to the stipulated timelines. [Para 8.1]

PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF PAR

The Committee notes that in the wake of Dev Dutt Judgment, the entire Appraisal Report is now required to be disclosed. It has been observed that the Reporting Officers have become quite reluctant to record honestly the weakness of the officer reported upon, either in a spirit of camaraderie or not to upset the apple cart. As a result, more than ninety per cent of officers are now getting outstanding gradings. The Committee feels that this trend of inflated gradings is defeating the very purpose of the appraisal system as it leads to difficulty in finding out outstanding officers with impeccable integrity and weeding out the incompetent ones. The appraisal being a precondition for career progression appears to have lost its importance and this has compelled the Government to supplement the process of PAR with new tools like Multi Source Feedback (360 degree) for the limited purpose of empanelment. [Para 9.0]

The Committee favours that the appraisal process should be consultative and transparent but it also appreciates the difficulty for anyone to be truly objective if his/her assessment is to be disclosed to the person reported upon. The Committee recommends that some amount of

24 25 sanctity should be brought back to the appraisal system by devising a system of appraisal wherein not the entire report is disclosed to the appraisee, but there is a partial disclosure only. The Committee, therefore, desires that the Government should look into the aspect of limited disclosure, somewhere between the ACR and APAR so as to retain best of both the procedures. [Para 9.1]

360 DEGREE APPRAISAL NEEDS TO BE TRANSPARENT AND BACKED BY RULES

The Committee notes that the 360 degree appraisal system is a new innovation of the Government for appointment of bureaucrats at the top level in Central Government. The system inter-alia includes assessing bureaucrats on integrity and reputation, through a comprehensive background check, before their empanelment. The second ARC in its tenth Report had, however, cautioned as under: [Para 10.0]

“In the context of India where strong hierarchal structures exist and for historical and social reasons it may not be possible to introduce this system unless concerns of integrity and transparency are addressed.”

In view of the above, the Committee recommends that the entire process should be transparent and rule based. The Government should frame guidelines on the entire aspects of the process of 360 degree appraisal and it should be notified. [Para 10.1]

TOWARDS PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The Committee while endorsing the views of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission on the need for a paradigm shift from Performance Appraisal based approach to Performance Management based approach, recommends that the Government should put on wheels the recommendations of the Second ARC in this regard, without delay. [Para 11]

ROLE AND RELEVANCE OF THE EMPANELMENT PROCESS

The Committee notes the concerns raised by various stakeholders that the empanelment under the Central Staffing Scheme is not providing a level playing field to all participating services, especially the non-IAS services and all the institutions/bodies involved in the empanelment and appointment process of JS and above level posts under the Government of India, predominantly comprise of officers of only one service, namely IAS. This is perceived by non-IAS services to tilt the balance in favor of IAS in the empanelment and placement process. The Committee feels there is a need to make the process broad based by associating officers of other services also in the empanelment and placement process for appointment to the posts of Joint Secretary and above and recommends that majority of officers in Civil Services Board, Experts panel and Special Committees of Secretaries should not belong to any one service. [Para 18.0]

The Committee gathers from the written submissions and the depositions made by the Cabinet Secretaries, present as well as the former, Secretary, DoPT, officers and the associations of various services that empanelment is the process of selecting officers for their appointment at the top management level of Government of India. This is done by creating a pool of officers 26 from the All India Services and the Central Group 'A' services participating in the Central Staffing Service. This system was introduced way back in 1970 with a view to draw best officers from the All India Services as well as other central services possessing proved capability, having diverse backgrounds, to be the part of top management level in running the affairs in the country. The system is time tested and has proved its worth. It is primarily governed by DOPT O.M. No. 36/77/94-EO(SM-I), dated 5th January, 1996. Surprisingly, it continues to be governed by the guidelines under this order which have undergone changes from time to time for more than four and half decades without having any statutory backup. It has given the impression in the minds of the certain services that the system does not give equal treatment to various services as it appears to be heavily tilted towards IAS. This apprehension needs to be allayed. The Committee, therefore, urges the Government to address this concern by taking suitable measures. [Para 18.1]

MAKING EMPANELMENT PROCESS MORE TRANSPARENT

As has been deliberated in the foregoing paras of the report, performance appraisal is critical to empanelment process. Despite the fact that empanelment is not a promotion, the assessment of the officers is primarily based on the gradings they earn in their PARs. Present system of performance appraisal has posed challenges before the authorities in the empanelment process and very high grading scores earned by a large number of officers has compelled the Government to resort to supplement the Performance Appraisal system by Multi Source Feedback (360 degree assessment). The 360 degree assessment also intends to capture the qualities of officers in terms of integrity, capability and general reputation based on the feedback received from various stakeholders, which the PAR system fails to gather. [Para 19.0]

The Committee also takes note of the observation of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission on the implementation of 360 degree appraisal in India. The Commission inter alia had suggested as under:

“In the context of India where strong hierarchal structures exist and for historical and social reasons it may not be possible to introduce this system unless concerns of integrity and transparency are addressed. However, it is suggested that Government may consider sensitizing officers at all levels about the importance of this feedback mechanism and its possible use in understanding their behavior and their ability to relate to others. [Para 19.1]

The Committee finds the present 360 degree appraisal system opaque, non-transparent and subjective as the concerns of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission have not been suitably addressed. Feedback in this process is obtained informally, making the process susceptible to being manipulated. Further, the feedback received from subordinates and stakeholders may be biased and lack objectivity, particularly if the officer had to discipline his subordinates or he was unable to meet the unjustified demands of stakeholders. Further, acting on feedbacks so received puts the concerned officer in a disadvantageous position as the remedies available to him in case his APAR/ACR has not been written objectively are not available to him in this process. Acting on such feedback behind the back of the officer may not be legally tenable 27 particularly if it adversely affects his empanelment prospects. Moreover, there is no statutory backing to the scheme and it is based on executive instructions only. The Committee, therefore, impresses upon the Government to take necessary steps to make the process of empanelment more objective, transparent and fair. [Para 19.2]

CLASSIFICATION OF POSTS ON THE BASIS OF DOMAIN-KNOWLEDGE

Seventh Central Pay Commission in its report has stated that:

“Given the complexities of modern day governance, the existing system of generalists manning senior policy making positions and shifting from one field to another in short spans of time, is considered not just outmoded but inimical to effective policy making. Therefore, the selection of officers with the requisite domain knowledge, with sufficient experience in the given field, and with sufficient length of balance service, would ensure that each sector gets not only the right person to head it but also the required stability and long term vision.” [Para 20.0]

The Committee recommends that Government should classify their entire SAG/Joint Secretary level posts according to their functional domains and officers possessing required domain knowledge and experience in the field should only be appointed in those positions. It would be desirable that the empanelment may be done by inviting applications for the empanelment at SAG/Joint Secretary and above level posts from interested and eligible persons of AIS and Central Services possessing domain expertise prescribed for the post. This will also create a healthy competition among various participating services and will bring best among them. [Para 20.1]

PROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATION FOR STATES/CADRES

In the course of examination, the Committee noted that while some States/Cadres are not getting their due representation in the list of empanelled officers, whereas some other are over represented. As per the State/Cadre wise figures provided by the DoPT, IAS officers empanelled for JS level during the last five years (2012-17), from some States like Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra the total empanelment has respectively been 11 and 13 per cent of their sanctioned strength whereas for cadres like Telangana and Uttarakhand it is only 2 and 3 per cent respectively of their sanctioned strength of IAS officers. One of the motives behind the Central Staffing Scheme is that the officers empanelled and appointed in the Central Secretariat when return to their home cadres, they benefit the States through the experience gained at the Centre. Hence, the States stand to benefit from the officers empanelled from their state cadres. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Government must ensure that all state cadres must get over a period of time due representation in the empanelment, which may broadly be proportionate to sanctioned strength of IAS officers in various cadres. [Para 21]

CREATION OF 'SECRETARY EQUIVALENT' POSTS IS NOT A HEALTHY TREND

The Committee during its deliberation on the subject has noted that the number of officers empanelled is invariably much larger than that of posts available. This leads to pressures to create large number of posts, just to accommodate empanelled officers. There have been many 28 instances where large numbers of Secretary/AS equivalent posts are created to accommodate those who are not appointed as Secretary/AS. This is not a healthy practice as it affects the command structure in the hierarchy. Thus, it is recommended that such a practice of creation of Secretary/AS equivalent posts may be stopped immediately. [Para 22]

CLUBBING OF BATCHES

In the course of deliberations, the Committee learnt that in the recent past during the empanelment process, batches have been bunched and it has been alleged that this has led to superseding of officers of the senior batches by their juniors. The DoPT in their written replies on this issue have stated that recently 1984 and 1985 batches of IAS officers for Secretary level and 1987 and 1988 batches of IAS officers for AS level posts have been empanelled simultaneously. This has been done to ensure that officers who are appointed as AS/Secretary have longer tenures. Lately, the officers of AS/Secretary Level have been getting less time before their superannuation. Further, the DoPT has also informed that the batches which have been clubbed have not been superseded by their junior batches. [Para 23.0]

The Committee observes that clubbing of batches is not only a deviation from the established procedure but also gives undue advantage to junior batches clubbed with a senior batch. Continuance of such practice will demotivate the officers of senior batches as they may feel deprived of the opportunities due to them. It has potential of leaving out many meritorious and deserving officer from being empanelled and thus being unfair and discriminatory to them, as also violating the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Moreover, such a practice creates uncertainties and insecurity in the system and may give rise to pulls and pressures. This ultimately shall adversely impact governance and is not advisable. [Para 23.1]

The Committee is unable to appreciate the rationale offered by the Department that the clubbing of batches has been done to ensure longer tenures for officers at the levels of Additional Secretary/Secretary. The Committee notes that the Government had earlier provided a minimum tenure to Cabinet Secretary, Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Director (IB), Secretary, RAW and Director (CBI) by allowing them to be in service beyond the age of superannuation, if so required, to complete the minimum tenure. The Committee therefore is of the view that if intention is to provide a longer tenure to the officers of the level of Additional Secretary/ Secretary, other options are available to the Government and for that clubbing is not necessary. The Committee does not approve clubbing of batches merely to provide longer tenures for which other options are available to the Government. The Committee, therefore, advises the Government to refrain from clubbing of batches in future. [Para 23.2]

CREATION OF INDEPENDENT BODY FOR EMPANELMENT

The Committee went through the views of the Government, various Service Associations that appeared before the Committee; the recommendations of the Sixth and Seventh Central Pay Commissions commenting on this issue; the recommendation of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008) recommending creation of an independent body for empanelment 29 and appointment process. In order to provide legal sanctity and acceptance of the empanelment process as transparent and fair, the Committee recommends constitution of an independent body, specifically constituted for the purpose, having statutory backing for empanelment. In this body, all the work of Experts panel, Civil Services Board and 'Committee of Secretaries' may be subsumed. The body may send its recommendations for empanelment to the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) for approval. This would be a full time permanent body whose members should be appointed by the President and the body may consist of eminent persons drawn from Government, Business, Academia, etc. [Para 24]

MINUTES

X TENTH MEETING

The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice met at 3.00 P.M. on Monday, the 16th January, 2017 in Room No. G-074, Parliament Library Building, New Delhi-110001.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri Anand Sharma — Chairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Shri D. Raja 3. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy 4. Shri Tiruchi Siva 5. Shri K. T. S. Tulsi LOK SABHA 6. Shri Tariq Anwar 7. Shri Idris Ali 8. Choudhary Mehboob Ali Kaiser 9. Shri Santosh Kumar 10. Shri Vincent H. Pala 11. Dr. A. Sampath 12. Shri Varaprasad Rao Velagapalli 13. Shrimati Meenakashi Lekhi 14. Dr. Satya Pal Singh SECRETARIAT Dr. D. B. Singh, Secretary Shri K. P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shrimati Sunita Sekaran, Director Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Joint Director Shrimati Niangkhannem Guite, Assistant Director WITNESSES

Representatives of Department of Personnel and Training

1. Shri Bhanu Pratap Sharma, Secretary;

33 34

2. Shri Rajiv Kumar, EO & Additional Secretary;

3. Shri T. Jocob, Additional Secretary;

4. Shri Devesh Chaturvedi, Joint Secretary; and

5. Shri Jagannath Srinivasan, Director.

2. At the outset the Chairman welcomed the Members to the first meeting of the Committee on the subject “Appraisal and Empanelment of Civil Servants under the Central Government” and informed that Secretary, DoPT and the Establishment Officer have been invited to make presentation on the Subject.

(On arrival of the witnesses)

3. In his opening observation the Chairman, stressed on the need to make constant improvement in the structure, processes and behavior of the Civil Services in order to meet the challenges of 21st century. He informed that the Committee has taken only two aspects of the issue viz. performance appraisal and empanelment. Chairman opined that performance appraisal of civil servants should be meant for development rather than control and the top levels of Government should be manned by persons having leadership and vision. Thereafter, he invited the Secretary, DoPT to apprise the Committee of the various aspects of the subject under consideration as perceived in the Governments' view.

4. The Secretary briefed the Committee about various stages of performance appraisal of All India Services as prescribed in All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007. He also informed about the difference between the present appraisal system and the earlier ACR system and various avenues available for appeal to the officers not satisfied with their appraisal. The Committee was also informed about SPARROW, an on-line system of filing performance appraisal by All India Services officers and proposal of the DoPT to extend this system to all other cadres.

5. The Secretary elaborated upon the working of the Expert Panel in the performance appraisal and empanelment processes. He gave brief description of the newly introduced system of Multi-Source Feedback (MSF) for empanelment of officers.

6. Some Members raised the issue of inadequate representation of SCs, STs and Women in the higher echelons of the Government. The DoPT was also asked to provide tabulated information about the number of SCs, STs and Women serving as Joint Secretary and above posts in the Government of India. The Secretary thereafter explained about the relaxation being given to SCs/STs employees in the empanelment process.

7. The Chairman then asked the Secretary, DoPT to provide written replies to the queries raised by Members on various issues related to the empanelment timelines, representation of SCs, STs, Women and minorities in the higher positions of the Civil Services, alleged discrimination of non-IAS officers vis-à-vis IAS officer, etc.

(The witnesses then withdrew)

8. Verbatim record of meeting of the Committee was kept.

9. The meeting adjourned at 04.32 P.M. 35

XVI SIXTEENTH MEETING

The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice met at 11.00 A.M. on Tuesday, the 2nd May, 2017 in Room No. G-074, Parliament Library Building, New Delhi-110001.

MEMBRES PRESENT

1. Shri Anand Sharma — Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Shri Prabhat Jha

3. Shri Dilipbhai Pandya

4. Shrimati Rajani Patil

5. Shri D. Raja

6. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy

7. Shri Ram Chandra Prasad Singh

8. Shri Tiruchi Siva

LOK SABHA

9. Shri Tariq Anwar

10. Shri Idris Ali

11. Adv. Joice George

12. Mehboob Ali Kaiser

13. Shri Santosh Kumar

14. Shri Vincent H. Pala

15. Shri Varaprasad Rao Velagapalli

16. Shri Pralhad V. Joshi

SECRETARIAT

Shri K. P. Singh, Joint Secretary

Shrimati Sunita Sekaran, Director

Shrimati Niangkhannem Guite, Under Secretary

35 36

WITNESSES

1. Shri Satyananda Mishra, Former Chief Information Commissioner

2. Ms. Upma Chawdhry, Director, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration

3. Ms. Doley Barman, Director, Sardar Vallabhabhai Patel National Police Academy

2. At the outset, Chairman welcomed the Members, Shri Satyananda Mishra former Secretary, Government of India and also Chief Information Commissioner along with Directors of two training academies viz. Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration and Sardar Vallabhabhai Patel National Police Academy have been invited to make presentation on the Subject. He then invited the witnesses to apprise the Committee of their views on the subject i.e. Appraisal and Empanelment of Civil Servants under the Central Government and make suggestions for its improvement.

3. Shri Satyananda Mishra opined that appraisal and empanelment are two different subjects but at the same time they are absolutely connected to each other. He informed that All India Service (AIS) Officers are cadre borne officers and majority of their career serving in the respective states allotted to them. The Government of India borrows them on deputation and majority of officers prefer to stay in their States and are not affected by the empanelment process. He further stated that the job in the Civil Services is permanent and therefore, appraisal of Civil Servants have received less attention as the officers know that if they could not make to the Central Government, they can continue in the State Government. He, therefore, suggested amendment to the All India Services Act to make appraisal an absolutely necessary concomitant or condition-precedent to career promotion, so that appraisal is taken seriously as is done in the private sectors.

4. Shri Mishra further stated, that post RTI enactment, the ACRs were made discloseable and majority of officers are getting 'outstanding' grades and therefore, at the time of empanelment, the objectivity is lost. He accordingly, suggested that the weightage given to performance appraisal in empanelment process must be reduced. He also opined that empanelment could be done by a Committee comprising of eminent persons from different walks of life. He stressed on the need to take into account the performance and achievements of an officer during his tenure in the State. He underlined the need for bringing further reforms in the present system and stated that the purpose should be improving the quality of governance of the entire country and not only of Government of India only.

5. Shri Mishra also suggested that, for filling up of vacancies at the higher echelons, applications may be invited followed by an interview from all India level prescribing requisite expertise and experience in a particular field six month prior to the occurrence of the anticipated vacancies, as done in Public Enterprises Selection Board. He further suggested, ensuring objectivity of the appraisal process APARs should not be disclosed to the concerned officers.

6. Thereafter, Ms. Upma Chawdhry, Director, LBSNAA informed the Committee that performance appraisal of AIS officers are governed by All India Services Performance Appraisal Rules, 2007 and its guidelines are in public domain. She briefly described the present appraisal system and stated that present system is sufficiently well as appraisal was being used as a tool to enable the person concerned to perform better and the present system brings more transparency. 37

7. Ms. Doley Barman, Director, SVPNPA also apprised the Committee that she is a total advocate of the present appraisal system, as it is more objective. She also stated that the present system gives an officer a chance to enlist their own achievement during the year, which is judged by the reporting and reviewing officers. For improving the system, she suggested to take a cue from the Army where the appraisal report of only immediate Reporting officer is shown. Thus the second level onwards the report should not be shown to the officer concerned.

(The witnesses then withdrew)

8. * * *

9. Verbatim record of meeting of the Committee was kept.

10. The meeting adjourned at 01.02 P.M.

*** Relates to other matters 38

XVII SEVENTEENTH MEETING

The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice met at 11.00 A.M. to 1.15 P.M. and again from 1.57 P.M. on Thursday, the 11th May, 2017 in Room No. G-074, Parliament Library Building, New Delhi - 110001.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri Anand Sharma — Chairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Shrimati Rajani Patil 3. Shri D. Raja 4. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy 5. Shri Ram Chandra Prasad Singh 6. Shri Tiruchi Siva LOK SABHA 7. Shri Tariq Anwar 8. Shri A. H. Khan Choudhary 9. Shri Vincent H. Pala 10. Dr. A. Sampath 11. Shri M. Udhayakumar 12. Shri Varaprasad Rao Velagapalli 13. Dr. Anshul Verma 14. Shrimati Meenakashi Lekhi SECRETARIAT Dr. D. B. Singh, Secretary Shri K. P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shrimati Sunita Sekaran, Director Shrimati Niangkhannem Guite, Under Secretary WITNESSES I. Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India 1. Shri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, Cabinet Secretary; and 2. Ms. V. Vidyawathi, Joint Secretary.

38 39

Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)

1. Shri Bhanu Pratap Sharma, Secretary.

II. Non-Official Witness

1. Shri K. M. Chandrasekhar, former Cabinet Secretary, Government of India.

III. National Academy of Customs, Excise and Narcotics

1. Shri P. K. Dash, Director General, and

2. Shri Yogendra Garg, Additional Director General.

IV. I.P.S. (Central) Association

1. Shri P. V. Rama Sastry, Joint Secretary; and

2. Shri Devesh Srivastava, Executive Director.

V. IRS (Customs, Central Excise and Service Taxes) Association

1. Dr. A. K. Srivastava, IRS, President;

2. Shri Shailendra Sinha, Vice President;

3. Shri Shravan Bansal, General Secretary; and

4. Shri Aditya Yadav, Joint Secretary.

VI. IRS (Income Tax) Association

1. Shri Akhilesh Ranjan, IRS, President;

2. Ms. Anchal Khandelwal, IRS, Joint Secretary;

3. Shri Navneet Manohar, IRS, Executive Committee Member; and

4. Shri Jayant Misra, IRS, General Secretary.

VII. Confederation of Civil Services Association

1. Shri Jayant Misra, IRS, Convener;

2. Shri P. K. Sinha, IRAS, Vice President, FROA; and

3. Ms. Lily Pandey, Joint Secretary, FROA.

VIII. Indian Civil and Administrative Service (Central) Association

1. Shri Sanjay Bhoosreddy, Hony. Secretary;

2. Shri Shailesh K. Singh, Hony. Member;

3. Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Hony. Member; and

4. Shri Shashi Ranjan Kumar, Hony. Member. 40

IX. IFS (Central) Association

1. Shri Prasant Kumar, Joint Secretary; and

2. Shri S. P. Yadav, Secretary General.

2. At the outset, the Chairman welcomed Shri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, Cabinet Secretary and Shri Bhanu Pratap Sharma, Secretary, DoPT and invited the Cabinet Secretary to express his views on the Subject “Appraisal and Empanelment of Civil Servants under the Central Government”.

3. The Cabinet Secretary briefly apprised the Committee about the evolution of the empanelment process since 2004-05, when there were no guidelines for empanelment, to the introduction of Experts panel and Multi-Source feedback in the year 2015. He apprised the Committee that the concept of the Experts panel was first introduced in February, 2005 and the system of Multi-Source Feedback (MSF) got introduced in the year 2015. These changes were made to bring about minimization of subjectivity in the empanelment process.

4. Thereafter, the Chairman welcomed and invited the former Cabinet Secretary, Shri K. M. Chandrasekhar to express his views on the subject. Shri Chandrasekhar briefly narrated the steps taken during his tenure as Cabinet Secretary to make the Appraisal and Empanelment process more transparent and effective. He stressed upon the need to introduce effective Performance Management System in place of Performance Appraisal System presently being used in the Government to assess the performance of bureaucrats.

(The witnesses then withdrew)

5. In the second part of the meeting, the Chairman called the DG, National Academy of Customs, Excise & Narcotics (NACEN) to express his views on the subject. The DG, NACEN apprised the Committee about the delay in empanelment of IRS officers and ad-hoc promotions being granted to the officers of the service due to ongoing litigations. He urged that both regular and ad-hoc promotions should be treated alike as both are governed by the same procedures. On a query by the Chairman, the DG informed about the training programmes being conducted by the Academy and their preparation for implementation of the GST.

6. Shri P. V. Rama Sastry of the IPS Association raised the issue of two years edge being given to the IAS in comparison to other services and demanded that it should be scrapped immediately as there is no justification for maintaining the same. He stressed on the need of maintaining inter-service parity among all participating services under the Central Staffing Scheme.

7. Dr. A. K. Srivastava, President IRS (Customs, Central Excise & Service Taxes) Association stated that Central Staffing Scheme is meant for providing level playing field for all participating services, however, the present system clearly favours only one service which is IAS. In theory, the IAS has been given two years edge only but in practice it is much more. He advocated that eligibility for empanelment for Joint Secretary should be uniformly 17 years of service. He welcomed the 360 degree appraisal initiative and opined that it must be made more objective. He further stressed on the need to decrease the dominance of IAS in various institutions involved in the empanelment process. 41

8. Shri Akhilesh Ranjan of IRS (Income Tax) Association endorsed the views expressed by the IRS (Central Excise) and IPS association and stated that the OM of 2001 has created an artificial distinction of two years compared to IAS, which he termed unreasonable, illogical and discriminatory. He also alleged that all bodies involved in the empanelment process are dominated by IAS officers and thus discriminatory.

9. In the post lunch session, the Chairman first invited Shri Jayant Misra, Convener, Confederation of Civil Services Association to express his views on the subject. Shri Misra highlighted the issue of declining strength of non-IAS All India Services and Central Services officers in the empanelment, particularly at the level of Additional Secretary and Secretary. He inter alia pointed two reasons for the declining strength of non-IAS services in the empanelment process, one is the two years edge, which he termed 'arbitrary', given to the IAS since 2001 and other is all the bodies involved in the empanelment process being dominated by the IAS.

10. After this, Shri Sanjay Bhoosreddy, Hony. Secretary, the Indian Civil & Administrative Services (Central) Association, who represented Indian Administrative Service, apprised the Committee about their views on the subject. He stated that the two tools of Appraisal and Empanelment are important not only from the point of view of the careers of officers of the Civil Services but also to ensure good governance and effective administration. Therefore, while reviewing the effectiveness of these tools, a holistic view should be taken to ensure that the appraisal and the empanelment processes bring out the true picture of the officers being reviewed for promotion and empanelment. On the issue of empanelment, he stated that giving an edge of two years to the IAS is a positive step to restrict the gap to two years, as in practice the gap was found to be much more than two years. In most of the cases, the delay in empanelment is because of non-availability of APARs and vigilance clearance and not because of any specific plan or design, as alleged by other services. He further argued that the philosophy behind All India Services is rooted in the continuous flow of officers from the field level in the States to policy (and operational) levels at the Centre and vice-versa and the key concept behind the Central Staffing Scheme is that officers bring experience and knowledge garnered from the field into policy making positions in GoI and take back the policy experience gained in GoI to the States. Thus, he defended the dominant presence of IAS at the higher echelons of the Government because of inherent skill and experience they have, which is not possessed by any other services.

11. Finally Shri Prashant Kumar from Indian Forest Service (IFoS) (Central) Association raised the issue of delay in empanelment of IFoS officers vis-à-vis IAS officers and artificial barrier of two years against them. He stressed on the need for providing a level playing field in the empanelment process and empanel officers based on Knowledge, experience and skills they possess.

(The witnesses then withdrew)

12. Verbatim record of meeting of the Committee was kept.

13. The meeting adjourned at 3.01 P.M. 42

XIX NINETEENTH MEETING

The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice met at 11:00 A.M. on Friday, the 16th June, 2017 in Room No. G-074, Parliament Library Building, New Delhi 110001.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri Anand Sharma — Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Shrimati Rajani Patil

3. Shri D. Raja

4. Shri Ram Chandra Prasad Singh

5. Shri K. T. S. Tulsi

LOK SABHA

6. Shri Tariq Anwar

7. Adv. Joice George

8. Choudhary Mehboob Ali Kaiser

9. Shri B. V. Nayak

10. Dr. A. Sampath

11. Shri Varaprasad Rao Velagapalli

12. Shrimati Meenakashi Lekhi

SECRETARIAT

Dr. D. B. Singh, Secretary

Shri K. P. Singh, Joint Secretary

Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Additional Director

WITNESSES

I. Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), New Delhi

1. Prof. K. K. Pandey; and

2. Dr. Sachin Chowdhry, Associate Professor.

II. Management Development Institute (MDI), Gurugram

Prof. Radha R. Sharma.

42 43

III. Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)

1. Shri Devesh Chaturvedi, Joint Secretary; and

2. Shri J. Srinivasan, Director.

2. At the outset, the Chairman welcomed Prof. K. K. Pandey and Dr. Sachin Chowdhry from the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) and Prof. Radha Sharma from the Management Development Institute (MDI), Gurugram and requested them to express their views on the Subject “Appraisal and Empanelment of Civil Servants under the Central Government”.

3. The experts from IIPA, New Delhi submitted that domain expertise of an Officer empanelled could be utilized optimally when the Officer concerned was posted in the right Departments. In that context, clubbing of Departments for placements of Officers on the basis of domain expertise as followed in Germany was alluded to. They highlighted that subjective element in performance appraisal could not be completely ruled out in the existing system and pleaded that an independent entity having representations from Government, academia, corporate world as suggested by Second Administrative Reforms Commission might be created for empanelment as well as placement of civil servants in Government of India. The present appraisal system of civil servant which is largely based on upward accountability might be suitably designed to ensure downward accountability, towards the civil society. In addition, they suggested security of tenure at top level across the board, mid-term review of physical as well as financial targets, key performance indicators might be included for performance appraisal.

4. Prof. Radha Sharma of MDI, Gurugram in her power point presentation apprised the Committee that the APAR happened to be based on performance appraisal, which should rather be more on performance management (outcomes) in Government Sector. Appraisal should focus on competency and potential of the Officer. She further stated that 360 degree feedback should be used for development purpose only and not for appraisal and the required competencies could be developed with appropriate interventions for multi-source feedback process. On the issue of empanelment, she suggested that leadership, emotional intelligence, competencies and resilience are of utmost importance for senior positions as evidenced by research; Functional (domain specific), administrative and behavioral competencies needed to be honed for giving direction to leadership trait of the senior officer.

5. Chairman while expositing the security of tenure currently available to Cabinet Secretary, Director, CBI and Secretaries of Ministry of Home, Defence and Foreign Affairs, raised apprehension that security of tenure for Secretaries across the board might lead to exclusion of large number of Officers who are at the verge of superannuation. He suggested DoPT to look into the possible repercussion of clubbing of batches and causes of non-representation of certain States at senior level under Central Staffing Scheme.

(The witnesses then withdrew)

6. Verbatim record of meeting of the Committee was kept.

7. The meeting adjourned at 12.25 P.M. 44

XXIII TWENTY THIRD MEETING

The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice met at 3.00 P.M. on Wednesday, the 2nd August, 2017 in Room No. '63', First Floor, Parliament House, New Delhi - 110001.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri Anand Sharma — Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Ms. Anu Aga

3. Shri Prabhat Jha

4. Shri Dilipbhai Pandya

5. Shrimati Rajani Patil

6. Shri D. Raja

7. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy

8. Shri K. T. S. Tulsi

LOK SABHA

9. Shri Idris Ali

10. Dr. A. Sampath

11. Shri Varaprasad Rao Velagapalli

12. Shrimati Meenakashi Lekhi

13. Shri Pralhad V. Joshi

14. Dr. Satya Pal Singh

SECRETARIAT

Dr. D. B. Singh, Secretary

Shri K. P. Singh, Joint Secretary

Shrimati Sunita Sekaran, Director

Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Additional Director

Shrimati Chanderlekha Sharma, Under Secretary

44 45

2. At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the Members to the meeting of the Committee. * * *.

3. The Committee then took up the consideration and adoption of the draft Ninety-second Report on the subject “Appraisal and Empanelment of Civil Servants under the Central Government”. Members deliberated on the issues contained in the Report, and thereafter, the Report was adopted with some minor modifications.

4. The Committee decided to present the Report to both Houses of Parliament on the 8th August, 2017. The Committee authorized the Chairman and in his absence, Shri Dilipbhai Pandya to present the Report to Rajya Sabha and Dr. Satyapal Singh and in his absence, Dr. A. Sampath to lay the same on the Table of Lok Sabha.

5. The meeting adjourned at 3.32 P.M.

*** Relates to other matter. 46

List of Experts/Stakeholders who offered their views on the subject

I. Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India

1. Shri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, Cabinet Secretary; and

2. Ms. V. Vidyawathi, Joint Secretary.

II. Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India

1. Shri Bhanu Pratap Sharma, Secretary;

2. Shri Rajiv Kumar, EO & Additional Secretary;

3. Shri T. Jocob, Additional Secretary;

4. Shri Devesh Chaturvedi, Joint Secretary; and

5. Shri Jagannath Srinivasan, Director.

III. Training Academies, Government of India

1. Ms. Upma Chawdhry, Director, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration;

2. Ms. Doley Barman, Director, Sardar Vallabhabhai Patel National Police Academy; and

3. Shri P. K. Dash, Director General, National Academy of Customs, Excise & Narcotics.

IV. Academic Institutions

Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), New Delhi

1. Prof. K. K. Pandey; and

2. Dr. Sachin Chowdhry, Associate Professor.

Management Development Institute (MDI), Gurugram

1. Prof. Radha R. Sharma.

V. Service Associations

I.P.S. (Central) Association

1. Shri P. V. Rama Sastry, Joint Secretary; and

2. Shri Devesh Srivastava, Executive Director.

IRS (Customs, Central Excise and Service Taxes) Association

1. Dr. A. K. Srivastava, IRS, President;

2. Shri Shailendra Sinha, Vice President; 47

3. Shri Shravan Bansal, General Secretary; and

4. Shri Aditya Yadav, Joint Secretary.

IRS (Income Tax) Association

1. Shri Akhilesh Ranjan, IRS, President;

2. Ms. Anchal Khandelwal, IRS, Joint Secretary;

3. Shri Navneet Manohar, IRS, Executive Committee Member; and

4. Shri Jayant Misra, IRS, General Secretary.

Confederation of Civil Services Association

1. Shri Jayant Misra, IRS, Convener;

2. Shri P. K. Sinha, IRAS, Vice President, ; and

3. Ms. Lily Pandey, Joint Secretary.

Indian Civil and Administrative Service (Central) Association

1. Shri Sanjay Bhoosreddy, Hony. Secretary;

2. Shri Shailesh K. Singh, Hony. Member;

3. Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Hony. Member; and

4. Shri Shashi Ranjan Kumar, Hony. Member.

IFS (Central) Association

1. Shri Prasant Kumar, Joint Secretary; and

2. Shri S. P. Yadav, Secretary General.

VI. Experts

1. Shri K. M. Chandrasekhar, Former Cabinet Secretary, Government of India; and

2. Shri Satyananda Mishra, Former Chief Information Commissioner.

ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE-I

1The All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951, (61 of 1951), and in supersession of the All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970, except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government, after consultation with the Governments of the States concerned, hereby makes the following rules, namely:

1. Short title, commencement and application.- (1) These rules may be called the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. Definitions.- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:-

(a) "accepting authority" means the authority which supervises the performance of the reviewing authority as may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the Government;

(b) "benchmark score" shall mean the minimum numerical weighted mean score arrived at for overall grading above which an officer shall be regarded as fit for promotion or empanelment, as the case may be, to the next higher grade;

(c) "empanelment" means the process of assessing the suitability for appointment at the level of Joint Secretary and above as well as equivalent posts in the Government of India;

(d) "Government" means,-

(i) In the case of a member of the Service serving in connection with the affairs of a State, or who is deputed for service in any company, association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government of a State, or in a local authority set up by an Act of the Legislature of a State, the Government of that State;

(ii) in any other case, the Central Government;

(e) "member of the Service" means a member of an All India Service as defined in section 2 of the All India Services Act, 1951 (61 of 1951);

(f) "performance appraisal report" means the performance appraisal report referred to in rules 4 and 5;

(g) "performance appraisal dossier" means the compilation of the performance appraisal reports written on a member of the Service, referred to in rule 3, and includes such other documents as may be specified by the Central Government, by general or special order, in this behalf;

(h) "promotion" means appointment of a member of the Service to the next higher grade over the one in which he is serving at the relevant time;

1 Published vide Notification No.11059/18/2002-AIS-III dated 14.03.2007 vide GSR No.197(E) dated 14.03.2007 in supersession of All India Service (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970

51 52

(i) "referral board" means a board consisting of officers of the Service designated by the Central Government for cases relating to all officers of the Service on Central deputation, or for officers of State cadres serving in the State, specified in Schedule 3;

(j) "reporting authority" means such authority or authorities supervising the performance of the member of the Service reported upon as may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the Government;

(k) "reviewing authority" means such authority or authorities supervising the performance of the reporting authority as may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the Government;

(l) "Schedule" means the Schedule annexed to these rules;

(m) "State" means a State specified in the First Schedule to the Constitution and includes a Union Territory;

(n) "State Government" means the Government of the State on whose cadre the member of the Service is borne and in relation to a member of the Service borne on a Joint Cadre, the Joint Cadre Authority.

3. Maintenance and custody of performance appraisal dossier. - A comprehensive performance appraisal dossier shall be maintained for each member of the Service by the State Government and the Central Government in the manner specified under these rules and the performance appraisal dossier shall consist of the documents specified in Schedule 1.

4. Form of the performance appraisal report. - (1) The reporting authority shall write the performance appraisal report in such form as may be specified by the Central Government in Schedule 2 and the officer reported upon and the reporting, reviewing and accepting authority shall ensure that the portions of the forms which are to be filled in by them are completed by them within the time limit specified in this behalf by the Central Government:

Provided that the Central Government may make such additions in the form or the cut-off dates so specified as may be considered necessary or desirable.

Provided further that the performance appraisal report shall also be written in such form as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government for the members of the Service on deputation and be treated as mandatory input for empanelment and promotion and placed in the performance appraisal dossier:

Provided also that the performance appraisal report shall also be written for members of Service who are on training or study leave in such form as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government.

5. Performance appraisal reports.- (1) A performance appraisal report assessing the performance, character, conduct and qualities of every member of the Service shall be written for each financial year or as may be specified by the Government in the Schedule 2: 53

Provided that a performance appraisal report may not be written in such cases as may be specified by the Central Government, by general or special order:

Provided further that if a performance appraisal report for a financial year is not recorded by 31st of December of the year in which the financial year ended, no remarks may be recorded thereafter and the officer may be assessed on the basis of the overall record and self assessment for the year, if he has submitted his self-assessment on time.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4), a performance appraisal report shall also be written when either the reporting or reviewing authority or the member of the Service reported upon relinquishes charge of the post, and, in such a case, it shall be written at the time of the relinquishment or ordinarily within one month of such relinquishment.

(3) Where more than one performance appraisal reports are written on a member of the Service during the course of a financial year each such report shall indicate the period to which it pertains:

Provided that only one report shall be written on a member of the Service for a particular period during the course of the financial year and there shall be a single reporting, reviewing and accepting authority at each level of assessment which shall be specified in the channel for writing performance appraisal reports by the concerned Ministries and State Governments and in no circumstances more than one person shall write the performance appraisal reports in the capacity of reporting, reviewing or accepting authority for a given period of time:

Provided further that if more than one person of the same superior level supervises the performance of the member of Service, the Government shall identify the person to report or review well in advance of the relevant assessment year.

(4) Where the reporting authority has not seen, but the reviewing authority has seen the performance of a member of the Service for at least three months during the period for which the performance appraisal report is to be written the reviewing authority shall write the performance appraisal report of any such member for any such period.

(5) Where, both the reporting authority and the reviewing authority have not seen and the accepting authority has seen, as referred to in sub-rule (4), the performance of any such member, the accepting authority shall write the performance appraisal of any such member during such period.

(6) Where the reporting authority, the reviewing authority and the accepting authority have not seen the performance of a member of the Service for at least three months during the period for which the report is to be written, the Government shall make an entry to that effect in the performance appraisal report for any such period.

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1), (2), (4) and (5), it shall not be competent for the reporting authority, the reviewing authority or the accepting authority to write a performance appraisal report after he demits office where the authority writing the performance appraisal report is not a Government servant. 54

Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule, "a Minister' shall not be construed as having demitted the office if he continues to be a Minister in the Council of Ministers with a different portfolio or in the Council of Ministers immediately reconstituted after the previous Council of Ministers of which he was a Minister with the same or a different portfolio provided the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, as the case may be, continues in office. 6. Review of the performance appraisal report.- (1) The reviewing authority shall record his remarks on the performance appraisal report, within the timeframe specified in the Schedule 2. (2) Where the report is written by the reviewing authority under sub-rule (4) of rule 5, or where the reviewing authority has not seen, and the accepting authority has seen, the performance of a member of the Service for at least three months during the period for which the performance appraisal report is written, the accepting authority shall review the performance appraisal report of any such member for any such period within the timeframe specified in the Schedule 2. (3) It shall not be competent for the reviewing authority, or the accepting authority, to review any such performance appraisal report unless it has seen the performance of the member of the Service for at least three months during the period for which the report has been written, and in every such case an entry to that effect shall be made in the performance appraisal report. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), it shall not be competent for the reviewing authority or the accepting authority to review any such performance appraisal report- (a) Where the authority reviewing the performance appraisal report is a Government servant, after one month of his retirement from service, and (b) In other cases, after one month of the date on which he demits office. Explanation. - For the purposes of this rule, "a Minister' shall not be construed as having demitted the office if he continues to be a Minister in the Council of Ministers with a different portfolio or in the Council of Ministers immediately reconstituted after the previous Council of Ministers of which he was Minister with the same or a different portfolio provided the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, as the case may be, continues in office. 7. Acceptance of the Performance Appraisal Report.- (1) The accepting authority shall within the timeframe specified in Schedule 2, record his remarks on the performance appraisal report and may accept it, with such modifications as may be considered necessary, and countersign the report: Provided that where the accepting authority has not seen the performance of any member of the Service for at least three months during the period for which the performance appraisal report has been written, it shall not be necessary for the accepting authority to accept any such report and an entry to this effect shall be made in the performance appraisal report. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), it shall not be competent for the accepting authority to accept and countersign any such performance report-

(a) where the accepting authority is a Government servant, after one month of his retirement from service, and 55

(b) in other cases, one month after the date on which he demits the office.

(3) When the performance appraisal report be not written or revised.- Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 5 or rule 6, where the accepting authority writes or reviews the performance appraisal report of any member of the Service, it shall not be necessary to review or accept any such report.

8. Communication of the performance appraisal report to the Central Government and the State Government.- A certified true copy of the performance appraisal report shall be sent to the Central Government or the State Government or both to the Central Government and the State Government, according as the member of the Service is serving in connection with the affairs of the State, on whose cadre he is borne, or the Union, or a State to which he has been deputed under sub-rule (1) of rule 6 of the respective All India Services Cadre Rules:

Provided that if the performance appraisal report is written in a language other than Hindi or English, it shall be accompanied by an authentic certified translation in Hindi or English.

9. Disclosure of performance appraisal report to the officer reported upon and procedure for representation to the Referral Board.- (1) The full annual performance appraisal report, including the overall grade and assessment of integrity, shall be disclosed to the officer reported upon after finalisation by the accepting authority to enable the officer reported upon to represent his case.

(2) The officer reported upon may have the option to give his comments on the performance appraisal report in writing to the accepting authority within fifteen days of the receipt of the Performance Appraisal Report.

(3) The comments shall be restricted to the specific factual observations contained in the Performance Appraisal Report leading to the assessment of the officer in terms of attributes, work output and competency.

(4) The accepting authority shall within fifteen days of receipt of comments from the officer reported upon forward the same to the reviewing and the reporting authority and call for their views on the comments.

(5) The reporting authority shall, within fifteen days of receipt of comments from the officer reported upon forward his own views on the comments to the reviewing authority failing which it shall be presumed that he has no views thereon.

(6) The reviewing authority shall forward the comments of the officer reported upon along with the views of the reporting authority and his own views to the accepting authority within fifteen days of receipt of the views of the reporting authority.

(7) The accepting authority shall consider the comments of the officer reported upon, the views of the reporting authority and the reviewing authority and after due consideration may accept them and modify the performance appraisal report accordingly and the decision and final grading shall be communicated to the officer reported upon within fifteen days of receipt of the views of the reviewing authority. 56

(8) (a) In case the officer reported upon chooses to represent against the final assessment conveyed to him according to this procedure, he may represent his case through the accepting authority for a decision by the Referral Board, as specified in the Schedule 3, within one month, provided that such representation shall be confined to errors of facts.

(b) The representation of the officer reported upon along with the views of the reporting authority, the reviewing authority and the accepting authority shall be forwarded to the Referral Board on the request of the officer reported upon within a period of fifteen days of receipt of communication.

(9) (a) The Referral Board shall consider the representation of the officer reported upon in the light of the comments of the reporting authority, the reviewing authority and the accepting authority and confirm or modify the performance appraisal report, including the overall grade and the decision of the Referral Board shall be confined only to errors of facts and the decision of the Referral Board shall be final.

(b) In case an entry or assessment is upgraded or downgraded, reasons for the same shall be recorded in the performance appraisal report.

(10) The entire performance appraisal report, including the overall grade, shall thereafter be communicated to the officer reported upon which shall conclude the process of assessment and no further representation of any kind shall be entertained thereafter.

10. Memorial against assessment.- Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to preclude an officer from making a memorial to the President on the Performance Appraisal Report, as provided under rule 25 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

11. General.- The Central Government may issue instructions, not inconsistent with the provisions of these rules, or as it may consider necessary, with regard to the writing of the performance appraisal reports, the maintenance of the performance appraisal dossier and the effect of the performance appraisal reports on the conditions of service of a member of the Service. 57

ANNEXURE-II

Guidelines for Secretary/Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary Level Empanelment including guidelines for Expert Panel

Prime Minister has approved as follows:

(i) For the purpose of evaluating the overall performance, numerical values of 10, 8, 5 and 0 may be assigned to 'Outstanding', 'Very Good', 'Good' and 'Average' overall grades given by the Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authorities during the 14 year period from the cut-off date.

If there are gaps in the availability of ACRs during this period due to the officer being on Study Leave or for any other reason not within the control of the officer, at least 10 full years ACRs would be taken into account by considering the ACRs of not more than 5 years immediately preceding the period. In the event that it is still not possible to get 10 full years ACRs, the case would be deferred until this condition is fulfilled.

If the ACRs of an officer are missing for 3 or more years, during the 14 year period due to his being on leave other than Study Leave, his empanelment would be deferred until the officer earns one more ACR for gaps of less than 4 years and two more ACRs for gaps of 4 years or more.

(ii) Based on the statistical analysis done by the Cabinet Secretariat, all scores while working in the State Government would be multiplied by the moderation factor which is ratio of the average grade of officers of a particular cadre while on Central deputation to their average grade while in the State, to obtain the 'moderated score'.

(iii) For the purpose of calculating moderation factors, smaller North Eastern cadres Manipur- Tripura, Sikkim and Nagaland, would be combined together to draw valid conclusions. Similarly, the newly formed cadres Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand would be combined with Bihar, MP and UP respectively. The moderation factor would be valid for one year. This would be revised in the beginning of each calendar year to take into account additional data entered into the database during the course of the previous calendar year.

(iv) On a scale of 10, the weighted (by the number of years) average of (i) score at the Center and (ii) moderated score while in the cadre will be an officer's numerical assessment score.

(v) A list in a descending order of the numeral assessment scores will then be prepared for consideration by the Special Committee of Secretaries (SCoS). The benchmark will be a (a) minimum numerical assessment score of 9.5 and a minimum average score of 9.0 on Central deputation if the period of such deputation exceeds 2.5 years but is less than five years or (b) average score of 9.3 for Central deputation of five or more years.

(vi) The Committee would also take into account the experience profile of officers, carefully scrutinize the ACR dossiers with special emphasis on the text of remarks contained in the ACRs as well as upgrading/downgrading of overall assessments and it would evaluate such

57 58

qualities as general reputation, merit, competence, leadership and a flair for participating in the policy making process to recommend the list of officers to be included in the panel.

(vii) Officers fulfilling the prescribed benchmark will be excluded if they are in the following categories:

(a) those who are not included in the panel of officers to hold JS level posts (for empanelment at the level of AS) or AS level posts (for empanelment at the level of Secretary) at the Centre, or

(b) those who have not worked on Central deputation for a minimum period of three years at the level of DS and above, or

(c) those not vigilance clear, or

(d) those who have less than two years residual service on the 1st day of the year in which the empanelment takes place for empanelment at the level of Secretary, or less than three years residual service for empanelment at the level of Additional Secretary, or

(e) those who do not fulfill the requirements of clause 16 of the Central Staffing Scheme. According to Clause 16 of the Central Staffing Scheme "An officer who is or was on a foreign assignment for a period of two years or more will be considered for empanelment at the level of Joint Secretary only if on return from such an assignment he has served for a period of at least two years in his cadre and has-earned two annual confidential reports thereon. Similarly, such an officer will be considered for empanelment at the levels of Additional Secretary/Secretary after he has served for a period of one year in his cadre and has earned one annual confidential report."

(viii) However, officers who have less than the requited residual service but are otherwise found suitable for empanelment would be placed in a separate category. Officers found suitable for holding the posts of Secretary would be given the pay of Secretary and placed as Principal Adviser in Ministries, where officers senior to them are holding post of Secretary and they will report to the Secretary concerned, officers found suitable for holding the post of Additional Secretary would be given the pay of Additional Secretary and placed as Senior Adviser.

(ix) Cases of officers who were on leave, excluding study leave for more than five years during the 14-year period would be deferred. These cases would be considered only after sufficient number of fresh ACRs become available to offset the period of the leave in excess of five years.

(x) The size of the panel for each year will be based on the number of anticipated vacancies during the next one year provided that the number of officers empanelled (i) at the level of Additional Secretary shall generally not exceed 40% of the batch strength and (ii) at the level of Secretary shall generally not exceed 35% of the batch strength. 59

(xi) In case the selection process does not lead to adequate representation of categories like SC/ ST, women, particular State cadres, the North East etc., in the panel, the criteria for empanelment would be suitably relaxed to give due representation to these. For this purpose, adequacy of representation would mean the cumulative representation in four batches i.e. the current batch and the immediately preceding three batches being less than 66 2/3 % of the all India percentages of empanelment. The number of officers to be selected on this basis shall not exceed 15% of the number included in the panel and these selections would follow the process outlined above albeit with suitably relaxed norms.

(xii) Review will be conducted batch-wise. Cases will not be taken up on an individual basis. The reviews shall be taken up once a year. No officer's case shall be taken up for review more than twice. However, if there is a significant change in the status of ACRs in a particular case, SCOS may consider the case after six months after empanelment without waiting for a regular review. Batch-wise consistency shall be maintained at the empanelment, and subsequent review stages.

(xiii) The above guidelines may be reviewed after three years.

2. In the context of paragraph 1(vii)(b), it is clarified that while applying the criteria of three-year prior Central experience, relaxation will be given to officers (i) who have earlier opted in writing to come to the Centre but whose names have not been forwarded by the Cadre Controlling Authority (except where the name has not been forwarded due to vigilance reasons), or (ii) who have earlier opted in writing to come to the Centre and whose names have been forwarded by the Cadre Controlling Authority, but have subsequently not been offered appointment under Central deputation (except where offer for Central deputation has been withheld due to vigilance reasons). Such relaxation shall be given to the first three batches taken up for empanelment for each of the levels of Additional Secretary and Secretary from the date that these particular norms have come into force.

3. In the context of paragraph 1(vii)(e), the empanelment of officers covered by Clause 16 of the Central Staffing Scheme shall be considered in accordance with the evaluation criteria in the Guidelines.

4. (a) There shall be an Expert Panel consisting of five Experts in connection with empanelment at Additional Secretary level. A mix of panelists will be ensured, both of persons who have been in recent touch with administration and those who may be from earlier batches and perhaps better placed for having an outlook of unattached objectivity. Regional balance will also be another objective in selection of the Expert Panel, as far as possible. The Expert Panel will be required to examine the ACRs year- wise in detail for each batch to ensure that the gradings match the performance and the achievements of the officer in the light of the officer's self-assessment and the remarks of the Reporting/Reviewing/ Accepting Authorities. The Expert Panel will also examine whether the assessment given in one or two years by a particular superior authority is out of line with the trend of other ACRs obtained by the officer from other superior authorities. The Expert Panel will give their own assessments of the gradings of officers for each year, which will be taken into account by the SCOS in suitably re-adjusting overall gradings for the purpose of assigning points.

(b) The Expert Panel will not be required to prepare a list of officers to be empanelled.

5. The process of empanelment will begin during the early part of the year. 60

Guidelines for Experts Panel (EP) for evaluation of officers for empanelment as Additional Secretary (AS)/Secretary

An EP has been constituted with the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for assisting the Special Committee of Secretaries (SCoS) in evaluating the overall profile and suitability of officers for empanelment at the level of AS and Secretary. The EP will assist in:

(i) Assessing the ACRs/APARs

(ii) Evaluating the Overall Profile and Suitability of officers

(a) Assessment of ACRs/APARs:

For empanelment at the level of Additional Secretary and Secretary, ACRs/APARs of 14 years are taken into account which should have ACRs/APARs for at least 120 months. If there are gaps in the availability of ACRs during this period due to the officer being on Study Leave or for any other reason not within the control of the officer, ACRs/APARs of not more than 5 years immediately preceding this period are taken into account.

EP is required to examine the ACRs/APARs in detail, year-wise, for the batch which is being assessed, and give its own assessment of the gradings of the officer for each year. In assessing the ACRs/APARs, EP would be guided by the following points:

1. EP will ensure that the gradings match the performance and achievements of the officer in the light of the officer's self-assessment and the remarks of the Reporting/Reviewing/ Accepting Authority.

2. EP will also examine whether the assessment given in one or two years by a particular authority is out of tune with the overall trend of other ACRs/APARs obtained by the officer from other superior authorities.

3. If a Reporting/Reviewing Authority is known or appears to be liberal or conservative in her/ his assessment, this may be taken into consideration while assessing the ACRs/APARs. Whether an officer has been liberal or conservative could also be inferred from a comparison with the other reports on the officer.

4. There may be more than one Reporting Authority in case of some officers during a particular reporting period. For example, an officer in a State Secretariat may combine several charges and his work might have been assessed by different Reporting Authorities. Suitable assessment may be made in such cases.

5. In those cases where Reviewing/Accepting Authority has downgraded/upgraded the grading given by the Reporting/Reviewing Authority, EP is required to give its assessment based on the justification given/not given by the Reviewing Authority/Accepting Authority.

6. In case of ACRs/APARs where the officer has submitted his self-assessment in time, but the comments of Reporting/Reviewing/Accepting Authority are time barred, EP may give its assessment based on self-appraisal of the officer. The comments of Reporting/Reviewing/ Accepting Authority may also be considered during such assessment. 61

7. While assessing the ACRs of upto 2006-07 (old system of ACRs) obtained while working in the States, special care would need to be taken to ensure that officers of certain Cadres do not get either undue advantage or disadvantage due to either liberal or conservative culture of gradings in that Cadre.

8. If representations of officers are referred to the EP by the Cabinet Secretariat with regard to particular ACR/APAR, it would suitably assess such ACR/APAR after duly considering the representations.

(b) Evaluation of Overall Suitability:

EP will do a comprehensive evaluation of the overall profile of officers, and discern their suitability to occupy senior positions at the level of AS and Secretary to the Government of India. In doing so, EP is to take inputs from a wide range of sources including:

(i) Past Performance records (ACR/APAR).

(ii) Multi-Source Feedback from relevant stakeholders.

(iii) Any other enquiries/deliberations as deemed fit by the EP.

9. To collect holistic Multi-Source Feedback (MSF) on the officer being evaluated, EP will interact (telephonically) with a range of connected stakeholders, such as, her/his (i) Seniors, (ii) Juniors, (iii) Peers, (iv) External stakeholders, and (v) Serving Secretaries. MSF is to be collected from across as diverse a range of these stakeholders as possible, covering not less than 5 people. EP is to capture each stakeholder's opinion of the officer in a MSF format (enclosed at Annexure A), having 7 simple questions to be scored on a 1 to 5 scale. Each filled MSF form (minimum of 5) is to be attached with the final Pen Picture of each officer submitted by the EP. EP is to assure MSF stakeholders of their anonymity and confidentiality, to elicit honest and accurate feedback.

10. Based on all of the above, EP will summarize its overall evaluation of each officer in a Pen Picture [as per template enclosed at Annexure B] - qualitatively fleshing-out strengths and weaknesses, based on past performance as well as future potential. All assessment should be substantiated with reasons and specific examples as far as possible. The Pen Picture is not to exceed 500 words and should conclude with the EP's clear opinion on the suitability of the officer for occupying AS and Secretary level positions in Government of India. EP may also specify suitable roles, functions and domains where the officer has potential to fit well and excel. This Pen Picture is to evaluate the officer strictly with regard to her/his suitability for empanelment, and will have no bearing on her/his regular promotion. 62

ANNEXURE A Multi-Source Feedback (MSF) This Multi-Source Feedback form helps you collect holistic feedback on the officer being evaluated, from across a range of stake holders (Seniors, Peers, Juniors, External stakeholders and Serving Secretaries). Each form is to be filled based on a MSF stakeholder's opinion of the Officer, as sensed by you from your interaction with her/him regarding the same. The MSF stakeholder should be assured of his anonymity and confidentiality, to elicit honest and accurate feedback. You are to score each of the 7 questions listed below on a scale of 5 levels: ‘Strongly Disagree’ ... 'Somewhat Disagree' ... 'Neutral' ... 'Somewhat Agree' ... 'Strongly Agree'. While marking on the scale, you may begin from the centre ('Neutral'), and then move left (for disagreement) or right (for agreement); going further out in case of stronger, unambiguous responses. Officer's Name: MSF Stakeholder's Name: Date:

Sl. Question Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Quality No. Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

l. Does the officer take timely, effective Decisiveness DECISIONS - especially in complex, Clarity ambiguous and critical situations?

2. Does the officer take OWNERSHIP- Willingness having the conviction to fulfill his to take responsibilities on his own accord + responsibility commitment to serve/seva + courage to Moral stand up for what is right? Courage

3. Is the officer PROACTIVE and innovative- Initiative taking initiative beyond instructions, expectations and his comfort zone; Innovation especially when 'thinking out of the box' and reforming the status quo? Risk-taking

4. Does the officer have a proven track record Implemen of DELIVERY - displaying the domain tation knowledge, implementation and problem- Problem- solving skills necessary to deliver quality solving results?

5. Is the officer a good team player and Team player TEAM LEADER- having the interpersonal skills (openness, humility, poise, empathy, Team builder negotiation, conflict resolution) necessary to coordinate and collaborate within and across Leadership teams and hierarchies, as well as to build, empower, lead and mentor teams? 6. Does the officer publicly enjoy a general Integrity reputation of complete HONESTY and Public having a strong value system? Perception 7. Do you believe the officer is well-suited for Overall a senior role in the Government of India? Suitability 63

ANNEXURE B

Name: Date:

Cadre: Gender: Age: Evaluate officer's performance track record/effectiveness (across field + secretarial work) Delivery

Identify domains in which officer has worked/performed, developing specialized knowledge/ expertise Domain Expertise

Map out functional skill-sets acquired and honed by officer over his career Skills Functional

Describe behavioural competencies/personal attributes displayed by officer Behavioural Competencies

Evaluate value-system of officer to give categorical conclusion on his Integrity Integrity

Beyond Doubt Doubtful

Measure future potential of officer based on track record and overall reputation - specifying suitable roles, functions and domains where he will fit well/excel Potential Reco Strongly Recommended Recommended Not Recommended 64

Name: Date:

Cadre: Gender: Age:

Evaluate officer's performance track record / effectiveness (across field + secretarial work) • Oversaw a program /policy - across life cycle from formulation to implementation • Lead big, complex organisations - improving efficiency, re-engineering processes, augmenting talent, adopting technology • Served stakeholder - delivering efficient, effective, transparent and accountable public services (service culture) • Mobilized large scale change - people participation, collaboration with external resources Delivery • Solved difficult problems - coming up with innovative new ways of solving old problems ... out-of-the- box solutions, not constrained by status quo • Institutionalized - interventions for them to continue after him • Developed domain expertise - academic rigour + theoretical specialization + policy understanding

Identify domains in which officer has worked / performed, developing specialized knowledge/expertise • Economy + Finance + Industry + Trade • Urban Development + Infrastructure + Energy + Environment + Natural Resource Management • Rural Development + Agriculture + Water • Education + Health + Social Justice • Tourism + Culture + Communication

Domain Expertise • Internal/External Security + Defence + International Relations

Map out functional skill-sets acquired and honed by officer over his career • Financial + Audit + Legal + Regulatory + Communication + Human Resource + Research / Academic • Strategy + Planning + Execution + Problem Solving Skills

Functional • Special emphasis on Technology - Technical competence, understanding and eagerness

Describe behavioural competencies / personal attributes displayed by officer • Capacity to Deliver - ranging across: Clarity of Vision + Decisiveness + Risk-taking (going beyond comfort zone / breaking status quo) • Interpersonal Skills - Poise, Understanding, Negotiation, Conflict Resolution • Communication - Clear + Concise + Compelling + Logical + Evidence-based • Team Player - Coordinate and Collaborate within and across teams and hierarchies + Take everyone along (understand, engage and align) • Team Leader - Build, Empower, Motivate and Mentor teams + Get team buy-in, especially influencing without power • Leadership - Lead by example + Respect others (especially juniors) + Humility • Vision - Big-picture + Long-term + Global-level + Looking beyond obvious

Behavioural Competencies • Openness - nimble at course correction + open to feedback / criticism + keen to learn + non- hierarchical (no ego of age / position) • Relationship Builder (Citizens/Colleagues) - Care + Connect + Empathy + Human Touch + Commitment to Serve 65

Evaluate value-system of officer to give categorical conclusion on his Integrity • Values - Just, Honourable and Honest • Moral courage - own up to mistakes + share credit + stand up for right + speak truth to power

Integrity • Integrity - Financial and Intellectual Beyond Doubt Doubtful

Measure future potential of officer based on track record and overall reputation - specifying suitable roles, functions and domains where he will fit well / excel • Include overall style: o Implementation vs Strategy / Policy formulation Potential o Leader vs Follower

Reco Strongly Recommended Recommended Not Recommended

This Pen Picture is a summary view of an officer's overall profile, qualitatively fleshing-out strengths and weaknesses based on his past performance as well as future potential. The Empanelment Panel is to fill this based on a comprehensive evaluation of the officer - taking input from a wide range of sources including: 1. Past Performance records (APARs) 2. Multi-Source Feedback from relevant stakeholders 3. Any other enquiries / deliberations as deemed fit by the EP Pen Picture The Pen Picture is not-to exceed 500 words and should conclude with a clear opinion on the suitability of the officer for a senior role in Government of India. All assessment should be substantiated with reasons and specific examples as far as possible. This Pen Picture is to evaluate the officer strictly with regards to his suitability for empanelment, and will have no bearing on his regular promotion and career progression. 66

Criteria for empanelment of Non-IAS officer at Additional Secretary/Secretary Level

For Secretary level

(i) Minimum of 30 years' service in Group "A"; and

(ii) Minimum of 2 years' service in a post in the pre-revised HAG scale (` 67000-79000) or more.

For Additional Secretary level

(i) Minimum of 25 years' service in Group "A"; and

(ii) Minimum of 7 years' service in a post in the pre-revised SAG scale (Pay Band-4 with Grade Pay of ` 10000) in the parent cadre or service.

In addition, officers should fulfill the following criteria:

(iii) Officers with at least one year's residual service;

(iv) Officers with at least 3 years' experience under Central staffing Scheme at the level of Deputy Secretary and above; and

(v) Officers empaneled at Additional Secretary level (for empanelment at Secretary level) and at Joint Secretary level (for empanelment at Additional Secretary level).

Reference date for determining the eligibility is 1st day of January of the year in which empanelment is considered. Guidelines for Experts Panel are same as those for IAS officers. 67

Consolidated Empanelment Guidelines for evaluating suitability of officers of IAS and other All India Services and Group-'A' Central Services for holding Joint Secretary/equivalent posts at the Centre.

Guidelines framed for evaluating the suitability of officers of the Indian Administrative Service and other All India Services and Group 'A' services for empanelment as Joint Secretary/equivalent have been revised.

1. Eligibility:

(i) Officers who have rendered 17 years of service in Group 'A', and

(ii) Drawing pay in the scale of ` 37400-67000+Grade Pay ` 10000 (Pre-revised ` 18400- 22400) in their respective parent cadre/service, OR

Where an officer is on deputation he should be on the panel approved by the ACC for the scale of ` 37400-67000+Grade Pay ` 10000 in that service/cadre and an officer junior to him on the panel should have been appointed to the post in the scale of pay of 37400- 67000+Grade Pay ` 10000 in the service/cadre, OR

For the AIS, the appointment of at least one officer of the batch year of the service of any State cadre in the scale of `37400-67000+Grade Pay ` 10000 (Pre-revised ` 18400-22400) would be a pre-condition for consideration of an officer of a particular year of allotment.

2. Consideration Norms:

(a) For the purpose of evaluating the overall performance of an officer the ACRs during the 10 year period, immediately preceding and inclusive of the cut off year, would be taken into account.

(b) If there are gaps in the availability of ACRs during the period due to the officer being on study leave, or for any other reason beyond the control of the officer, at least 8 full years ACRs would be taken into account by considering the ACRs for a maximum of 3 years immediately preceding the period. In the event that it is still not possible to get full 8 years ACRs, the case would be deferred until the condition is fulfilled.

(c) If the ACRs of an officer are missing for 3 or more years during the 10 year period due to his being on leave other than study leave, his empanelment would be deferred until the officer earns 1 more ACR for a gap of less than 4 years and two more ACRs for a gap of 4 years or more.

(d) However, for the purpose of meeting the shortfall of ACRs at the time of initial empanelment in respect of officers, who were on study leave or for any other reason beyond the control of the officer, the additional ACRs earned by the officer in the subsequent years would be taken into account. Further, for the purpose of counting the adequacy of ACRs, the 13 year period will continue to be reckoned with reference to the cut-off year for that batch. 68

(e) Officers fulfilling the prescribed eligibility criteria will not be considered for empanelment, if they are in the following categories:-

(i) those have less than four years residual service on the 1st January of the calendar year in which the empanelment takes place*; or

(ii) those with less than the prescribed number of ACRs; or

(iii) those who do not fulfil the requirement of Clause 16 of the Central Staffing Scheme. According to Clause 16 of the Central Staffing Scheme "An officer who is or was on a foreign assignment for a period of two years or more will be considered for empanelment at the level of Joint Secretary only if on return from such an assignment he has served for a period of at least two years in his cadre and has earned two annual confidential reports thereon."

Procedure for Empanelment and Other Provisions

1. Procedure for Empanelment:

(a) Empanelment should be considered not as a reflection of the intrinsic merit or otherwise of an officer but the suitability of an officer to occupy senior levels in the Central Government. Given the background and experience of an officer, she or he may be highly suited to occupy senior positions in State Government. Likewise, another officer, in view of the background and experience, may be considered more suitable for Central Government posts.

(b) There shall be separate Experts Panel in connection with the empanelment at the level of Joint Secretary. The Experts Panel will be required to examine the ACRs, year-wise in detail for each batch and will give their own assessment of the gradings of officers for each year, which will be taken into account by the CSB(Civil Services Board) for making recommendations.

(c) Officers who wish to represent specific concerns regarding their performance appraisal over the years which would be relevant for assessing their suitability for empanelment may be permitted to do so at the initial stage itself. These would include issues such as arbitrary down gradation of the overall grade, mismatch between grading and pen-picture, missing ACRs, assessment recorded for periods less than three months, assessments recorded long after due date, etc. These would be particularly relevant for the period of assessment that fall under the old ACR system which did not provide for disclosure of the assessment to the officer concerned unless it was adverse. Such representations would be first examined and dealt with in DoPT in the light of factual information regarding any violation or oversight of relevant rule/instructions in recording the assessments or any error apparent on the face of the record. Those representations that are not accepted by the DoPT must be placed before the Experts Panel so that the Panel could take into account any valid point raised by the officer while making an assessment about his or her suitability for empanelment. 69

If required, the Experts Panel may seek additional factual information from the Establishment Officer but the views/opinion of the Establishment Officer may not be sought. If the process of obtaining factual information is likely to take time, the Experts Panel may recommend deferment of such cases for the time being along with its assessment in respect of periods of ACRs/APARs which are not in dispute. The CSB may then take a view on such cases once information is available and make an appropriate recommendation for ACC orders.

(d) For the purpose of evaluating the overall performance, numerical values of 9, 7, 5 and 0 are assigned to 'Outstanding', 'Very Good', 'Good' and 'Average' grade given by the Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting authorities during the time period under consideration. In respect of the Performance Appraisal Reports submitted under AIS (PAR) Rules 2007, the numerical grades as suggested in paragraph 2 of DOPT letter No. 11059/23/2008-AIS. III dated 4th June, 2009 will be applicable and will be rounded to 9, 7, 5 and 0 as their numerical equivalents to the range of 'Outstanding', 'Very Good', 'Good' and 'Average' grades. Thus, the officers would be assessed on a scale of 9 on the basis of their grades in the ACRs.

(e) The CSB would take into account the experience profile of officers, carefully scrutinize the ACR dossiers and evaluate such qualities as general reputation, merit, competence, leadership and a flair for participating in the policy making process to recommend the list of officers to be included in the panel.

(f) Of the batch strength, around 60% of the officers are normally to be considered for empanelment for Joint Secretary or equivalent level. For the batches to be considered till 31.12.2014, this ceiling has been raised to 75% of the batch strength. The batch strength for a particular batch shall be the actual strength, less the number of officers due to retire within next four years for Joint Secretary level empanelment as on 1st January of the calendar year in which empanelment takes place. For the purpose of determining the ceiling on the number of officers to be empanelled in a particular batch, this batch strength would be taken without any further exclusions.

2. Other Provisions:

(a) 'Vigilance denied' officer shall not be empanelled, which means that they exhaust their first chance of empanelment. The cases of officers who have defaulted in filing property returns shall also be treated as vigilance denied, for a period of one year for every default. Adverse impact of default in filing of IPR would be one year applicable to the empanelment due in the year of default.

(b) In case the selection process does not lead to adequate representation of categories like SC/ ST, women, particular State cadres, the North East etc. in the panel, the criteria for empanelment would be suitably relaxed to give due representation to these. For this purpose,

* 'By 1st January of the calendar year in which empanelment takes place' means the year in which the case is considered by the CSB. 70

adequacy of representation would mean the cumulative representation in four batches i.e. the current batch and the immediately preceding three batches being less than 66- 2/3% of all India percentage of empanelment. The number of officers to be selected on this basis shall not exceed about 15% of the number included in the panel and these selections would follow the process outlined above albeit with suitably relaxed norms.

(c) In respect of representations received after the process of empanelment is over from the non-empanelled officers, the CSB will decide them on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation, after obtaining the recommendations of the Experts Panel, if necessary.

(d) Review will be conducted batch wise. Cases will not be taken up on an individual basis. Review will be taken up after two more ACRs are added. No officer's case shall be taken up for review more than twice. 71

ANNEXURE-III

List of Services Participating under Central Staffing Scheme

Sl. No. Service

1. Central Company Law Service

2. Central Engineering Service (Roads)

3. Central Power Engineering Service

4. Indian Trade Service

5. Central Water Engineering Service

6. Central Engineering Service (CPWD)

7. Indian Administrative Service

8. Indian Audit & Account Service

9. Indian Broadcasting (Engineering) Service

10. Indian Broadcasting Programme Service

11. Indian Civil Accounts Service

12. Indian Cost Accounts Service

13. Indian Defence Accounts Service

14. Indian Defence Estate Service

15. Indian Defence Service of Engineers

16. Indian Economic Service

17. Indian Forest Service

18. Indian Information Service

19. Indian Inspection Service

20. Indian Ordnance Factory Service

21. Indian P&T Finance & Accounts Service

22. Indian Police Service

23. Indian Postal Service

24. Indian Railway Accounts Service

25. Indian Railway Personnel Service

26. Indian Railway Service of Electrical Engineers

71 72

Sl. No. Service

27. Indian Railway Service of Engineers

28. Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers

29. Indian Railway Service of Signal Engineers

30. Indian Railway Store Service

31. Indian Railway Traffic Service

32. Indian Revenue Service(C&CE)

33. Indian Revenue Service(IT)

34. Indian Statistical Service

35. Indian Supply Service

36. Indian Telecom Service

37. Geological Survey of India', Group 'A' Service 73

ANNEXURE-IV

State/Cadre wise List of IAS Officers Empanelled for JS/AS/Secretary Level during last five years (2012-17)

Sl. No. Cadre Total empanelled

1. Manipur-Tripura 12

2. AG MUT 30

3. Andhra Pradesh 24

4. Bihar 18

5. Chhattisgarh 12

6. Gujarat 16

7. Haryana 13

8. Himachal Pradesh 11

9. Jammu and Kashmir 9

10. Jharkhand 12

11. Karnataka 15

12. Kerala 18

13. Madhya Pradesh 41

14. Maharashtra 46

15. Odisha 25

16. Punjab 23

17. Rajasthan 29

18. Tamil Nadu 35

19. Telangana 3

20. Uttar Pradesh 37

21. Uttarakhand 3

22. West Bengal 17

23. Assam, Meghalaya 22

24. Nagaland 5

25. Sikkim 4

ALL INDIA 480

73 74 level level equivalent -1 Secretary equivalent Secretary equivalent equivalent level level Secretary level IAS officers empanelled at Secretary/Secretary Secretary level Equivalent and Secretary level level level level level Secretary equivalent equivalent equivalent level officers officers officers officers officers officers officers officers officers officers officers level 1980 Batch (2013) 1981 Batch (2014) 1982 Batch (2015) 1983 Batch (2016) 1984 Batch (2017) 1985 Batch (2017) Year, Batch and Cadre/State-wise details of Batch and Cadre/State-wise Year, Secretary at Secretary at at Secretary at at Secretary at at Secretary at at at at Secretary/ empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled equivalent equivalent Secretary/ equivalent Secretary/ equivalent Secretary/ equivalent Secretary/ Secretary Secretary/ Secretary empanelled at No. of officers No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of Cader/State Sl. No. 1. AGMUT2. Andhra Pradesh3. Assam-Meghalaya4. Bihar 25. 2 Chhattisgarh 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 6. Gujarat7. Haryana8. Himachal Pradesh9. Jammu and Kashmir10. 3 Jharkhand 1 111. Karnataka12. 2 Kerala 1 13. 1 Manipur14. 2 3 Madhya Pradesh 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 75 1 35 8 31 8 34 12 33 15 17 15 20 21 OTAL T 15. Maharashtra16. Nagaland 17. Odisha 118. Punjab19. Rajasthan20. Sikkim 21. 3 Nadu Tamil 22. 1 3 Telangana23. Tripura 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 1 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 24. Uttarakhand25. Uttar Pradesh26. Bengal West 1 4 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 8 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 3 76 level level level 11 level level level level level level Equivalent and AS Equivalent level Equivalent and level level level 1983 Batch (2013) 1984 Batch (2014) 1985 Batch (2015) 1986 Batch (2016) 1987 Batch (2017) 1988 Batch (2017) No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of officers officers officers officers officers officers officers officers officers officers officers officers at AS/AS at AS at AS/AS at AS at AS/AS at AS at AS/AS at AS at AS/AS at AS at AS/AS at AS equivalent equivalent equivalent equivalent equivalent equivalent equivalent equivalent equivalent equivalent equivalent equivalent empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled empanelled Year, Batch and Cadre/State-wise details of IAS officers empanelled at Additional Secretary (AS)/AS details of IAS officers empanelled at Batch and Cadre/State-wise Year, Cader/State 1. AGMUT2. Andhra Pradesh3. Assam-Meghalaya4. 3 Bihar 35. 5 Chhattisgarh6. 1 Gujarat7. 1 Haryana8. 4 2 Himachal Pradesh9. 3 3 Jammu and Kashmir10. 2 3 Jharkhand 211. Karnataka 112. Kerala 413. 3 1 Manipur 2 514. 3 3 1 Madhya Pradesh15. 1 1 Maharashtra16. 1 4 Nagaland 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 4 2 1 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 3 5 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 1 2 4 2 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 Sl. No. 77 1 57 11 54 4 65 4 35 8 30 9 33 4 OTAL T 17. Odisha18. Punjab19. Rajasthan20. Sikkim 3 2 4 2 2 4 2 1 3 4 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 21. Nadu Tamil 22. Telangana23. Tripura24. 2 Uttarakhand25. 1 Uttar Pradesh26. Bengal West 3 1 . 3 4 4 1 2 2 1 5 2 1 2 1 1 1 5 3 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 1 3 1 1