Government have had under consideration the question whether the identity of the officer who recorded adverse remarks in the annual confidential report of a Government servant should be disclosed while communicating the adverse remarks to him. Cases have come to the notice of this Ministry where certain offices are reported to have disclosed the identity of the superior officer who made the adverse remarks while communicating them to the Government servant concerned. It is not necessary to disclose the identity of the Officer concerned since, what the Government servant should be interested in, are the defects/short-comings which his superior officers have found in his work and conduct and not the particular superior officer who recorded them in the confidential report and the representations on the remarks, if any, should be objective pertaining of short-comings noticed. Apart from this, disclosure of the identity of the superior officer is also likely to lead to unpleasantness and personal animosity. It is, therefore desirable that while communicating the adverse remarks to the Government servant concerned, the identity of the superior officer making such remarks should not normally be disclosed.
2. If, however, in a particular case, it is considered necessary to disclose the identity of the superior officer, the authority dealing with the representation may at his discretion allow the identity to be communicated.
3. In so far as persons serving in the Indian audit and Accounts Departments are concerned, these orders are issued after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
[MHA OM No. 51/2/64-Ests.(A), dated 30.03.1964]
No comments:
Post a Comment