Appraisal for November,2009-March,2010:
- Showed great zeal and dedication, devised innovative training methodology, well-meaning, hard working, intelligent, professionally sound, dependable, trustworthy, unbiased ( 29/3/10)
Appraisal for November,2009-March,2010 by the same authority:
- Takes keen interest in Astrology and Homoeopathy, very conscious of his integrity and careful to see that he gets whatever is due to him. He should soon be able to acquire the skills necessary for his job ( 25/4/11)
Appraisal by the immediate supervisor:
- He does not possess drive and stamina for field work. He shirks from ardous assignment. He has a streak of insubordination and his performance is flashy ( 18/12/12)
Advertisement
Appraisal by the DGP four days later:
- He is a great asset as a junior and a true teacher as the senior. His presentation on post-mortem facilities led setting up world class facilities in this state. I have more than adequate reason to rate this officer as simply outstanding. ( 26/12/12)
All these assessments curiously relate to the performance of the same officer. Even more remarkably, the first two assessments, diametrically opposite to each other, were also done by the same supervisor. In March, 2010 the officer being assessed was graded as 'outstanding' and given 9 points out of 10. In April next year he was rated as 'average' for his performance for the same period and given 4 out of 10. The appraiser was careless and forgot that he had signed the earlier appraisal too and had sent it to the headquarters.
But it took Bihar's Home Department four years to admit on June 11, 2015 the existence of two contradictory assessments and conclude that the second assessment was 'time barred' and hence invalid. No explanation was sought though from the assessor, who is now the head of a central police force, while the assessee, an IG rank officer, has been humiliated and denied empanelment for central deputation.
The curious case of Paresh Saxena, MBBS and M.D., an IPS officer of the 1994 batch and Bihar cadre, highlights how arbitrary performance appraisals of even IPS officers can be and why most of them fall in line and collude with various lobbies at work.
As SP, Sitamarhi in 1998 Saxena is credited with investigating a mob attack on the collectorate that led to police firing and deaths. The charge sheet resulted in conviction in June, 2015 of the BJP MLA Ram Naresh Yadav, former JD(U) MP Nawal Kishore Rai, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Anwarul Haq and district president and secretary of the Rashtriya Lok Samata Party of union minister Upendra Kushwaha.
But while his performance as SP was rated as outstanding by the District Magistrate, the Range DIG, the Zonal IG and the Zonal Commissioner, the then Director General of Police, Ashish Ranjan Sinha, downgraded his rating to 'average'. While Sinha has retired since then, it is only now that the Bihar Government has acknowledged that Saxena was kept in the dark about being downgraded and that the DGP had failed to record in the appraisal that he himself had issued a letter of commendation to Saxena.
The reason, say both serving and retired IPS officers in the state, was that Saxena, a Kayasth from UP, was believed by the DGP to be close to Abhayanand, a Bhumihar who rose to become the DGP. The then DGP headed a different caste lobby and sought to punish Saxena for his perceived closeness with Abhayanand.
Then followed his stint as deputy director of the Bihar Police Academy, where he first so impressed his superior that he was rated as outstanding in March, 2010. But soon thereafter he fell foul of the director by allegedly objecting to financial irregularities, which he put on record. For the next two years he was rated as 'average' by the director and graded 4 out of 10. Luckily for Saxena, two successive DGPs, Anand Shankar and Neelmani, thought it fit to ignore the director's appraisal and upgrade his rating to 'oustanding' on each occasion.
Then followed his stint as DIG, Koshi Range when he was called upon to supervise the re-investigation of rape and muder of an Assamese woman by a brick kiln owner, who was politically influential. Saxena apparently found gross irregularities and procedural flaws in the earlier investigation. He ordered cases to be lodged against guilty policemen as well as the brick kiln owner. The Range IG however intervened to bail out the culprits at the behest of powerful politicians and encouraged a Sub Inspector found guilty of flawed investigation and who Saxena ordered to be prosecuted, to call a press conference and complain that he faced threat to his life from the DIG. No action was taken against the SI; and the SP who let off the culprits was promoted.
Saxena's stand was vindicated in April, 2015 when the brick kiln owner was killed by two men from West Bengal after he tried to rape the wife of one and the sister of the other. Both men, who were working for the deceased, went to the police station and surrendered.
But in the meanwhile the IG in his appraisal had this to say about his DIG: " The officer is casual and laid back, lacks drive and initiative…one of the sub inspectors was tortured to the extent of his expressing his anguish against the officer in the media…the officer needs behavioural therapy and counseling…his integrity cannot be certified…not suitable for field posting…" The IG graded Saxena below average at 3.5 out of 10.
Four days later the reviewing authority the DGP reversed the rating and wrote : "I used to meet people in large numbers and I can certify that people invariably demanded supervision and review of cases by the officer reported upon…there cannot be a greater tribute to the functioning of a policeman".
The DGP added that he had seen the letter of the IG highly recommending a police medal to Saxena. Comparing the IG's comments in the appraisal with his letter of recommendation would make a 'good dictionary of English antonyms'.
The wildly fluctuating appraisals (Outlook has copies) provides a fascinating insight into how police officers are rated or not rated.
