SC urges objectivity in officers’ performance evaluation

Explaining the scope and importance of Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs), the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that an officer is to be apprised if their reporting or countersigning officer is dissatisfied with their work, and the communication of such dissatisfaction with advice or warning should be prompt so that the officer may eradicate the fault and improve their performance.

"PERs are the most important documents in the service record of civil servants. They help the competent authorities in making informed decisions with regard to personnel administration matters, such as selections for training, appointments/transfers, promotions, confirmations, or screening of civil servants. An officer's promotion and retention in service mostly depend on what has been recorded in his/her PER. It is, therefore, essential that the PERs are written by the reporting and countersigning officers most carefully and responsibly," states a six-page judgment authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah while upholding the tribunal’s decision in favour of two Intelligence Bureau (IB) officers regarding the expungement of remarks recorded by the countersigning officer while the assessments of their performance made by the reporting officers.

A three-judge bench of the apex court led by Justice Shah heard the matter.

The judgment notes that the PER forms which elaborate the criteria against which the performance of a subordinate officer is to be evaluated, and the instructions issued with regards to properly recording the PERs, are designed to ensure reporting on an officer's strong and weak points more objectively, as only objective reporting can effectively serve the true purpose of such reports.

Read more: Supreme Court gives ruling in first-ever cartel case

"If the reporting or the countersigning officer is partial, his opinion is likely to cause incalculable damage to the officer reported upon, and if a PER is ambiguous or carelessly written, it would not serve the true purpose of recording PERs,” it adds.

"Therefore, the reporting and countersigning officers should evaluate the performance of the officer reported upon in a detached and objective manner, in accordance with the instructions issued on the subject," the judgment states.

The court has noted that according to “Performance Management in the Public Administration – Seven Success Factors” published in 2021, the seven success factors to enhance performance management in the public sector include improving manager judgment and diversifying the sources of evaluation for performance appraisals to ensure objectivity and fairness in assessment, such as through 360-degree evaluations and by acknowledging and addressing bias and enabling staff performance through adequate opportunities for growth and development, such as through regular feedback and coaching.

"Therefore, much importance is extended to proper and effective performance appraisals and assessment of employees in public administration, which in Pakistan is mainly undertaken through recording PERs, for successful performance management in public administration as a means to increase public sector productivity,” the judgement states.

"This further necessitates that recording of PERs must be undertaken with complete objectivity and fairness, and with a view to improving individual and organisational productivity,” it adds.

"That is why it is emphasised that the reporting or countersigning officers should not ordinarily record adverse remarks as to the performance of an officer without prior counselling,” it further states.

"They are thus expected to apprise the officer concerned about his weak points and advise him/her how to improve and to record the adverse remarks in the PER when the officer fails to improve despite counselling,” the verdict states.

"The supervisory officers under whose supervision other officers work, must realise that supervision does not mean cracking the whip on finding a fault in their performance, rather the primary purpose of the supervision is to guide the subordinate officers in improving their performance and efficiency, and that their role is more like a mentor rather than a punishing authority,” it states.

"As the purpose of counselling is to improve the performance of the officer and not insult or intimidate him, the supervisory officers are also to see, having regard to the temperament of the officer concerned, whether the advice or warning given orally or in written form, or given publicly in a general meeting of the officers or privately in a separate meeting with the concerned officer only, would be beneficial for the officer in improving his performance,” it adds.

"The directions contained in the instructions, in this regard, on paying great attention to the manner and method of communicating advice or warning should be adhered to,” it further states.

"It must also be pointed out that such guidance, through counselling, for improving the performance and efficiency of a subordinate officer, can ultimately benefit the organisation as it enables identifying and addressing performance issues before they become major problems, thereby, leading to increased productivity and better performance so that the organization’s goals and objectives are effectively achieved,” it adds.

The judgment also states that it is true that the evaluation of the performance of a subordinate officer by his reporting or countersigning officer, primarily being a matter of personal assessment based on the direct observation of the work of the officer concerned is not to be usually interfered with by the tribunal or the top court unless mala fide with full particulars, or the gross violation of the instructions, on the part of the reporting or countersigning officer, as the case may be, is shown.

"In the present case, the tribunal has interfered with and expunged the remarks recorded by the countersigning officer mainly on the ground of gross violation of the instructions on the subject of recording adverse remarks in PERs,” the court has stated in its judgement.

The court has noted that in this case, the countersigning officer did not mention in the PERs that he had counselled the respondents for improving their performance nor did he justify his departure from the above general rule of making prior counselling before recording the adverse remarks.

"He has also not given the required specific reasons for his disagreement with the evaluation of the reporting officers. There was, thus, a gross violation of the instructions by the countersigning officer in recording the adverse remarks in the PERs of the respondents,” the verdict states.