Resolved: Performance appraisal set aside following procedurally flawed assessment

Resolved: Performance appraisal set aside following procedurally flawed assessment

Published July 31, 2026

The complaint

An officer in Scale 5 (Laboratory Manager) within the Department of Pathology at the University of Malta complained that her 2024 performance appraisal had been conducted unfairly. She maintained that she had never been informed of any shortcomings in her performance, had not been consulted before or after the appraisal was completed, and that several questions in the electronic appraisal form did not apply to her role. Despite raising her concerns with both the Head of Department and the University's Human Resources Department, no effective remedy was provided.

Facts and findings

The Commissioner for Education found that this was not an isolated case. In an earlier investigation concerning another University employee, the University had already acknowledged shortcomings in its performance appraisal system, particularly the absence of meaningful discussions between the appraiser and the employee being assessed and had undertaken to address these deficiencies.

Following a review of the evidence, the Commissioner concluded that the issue centred solely on the complainant's performance appraisal for the relevant period and not on her professional development or other employment matters raised by way of counter argument by the University. The investigation established that the appraisal had been carried out without proper engagement with the complainant, in a perfunctory manner, and that her subsequent detailed objections were summarily dismissed without any substantive consideration.

The Commissioner further found that the appraisal process was procedurally flawed. The assessment included criteria that were not applicable to the complainant's duties, while the electronic appraisal system did not provide an option to indicate that particular questions were not relevant to the person being evaluated. The Commissioner held that an employee should not be disadvantaged because of deficiencies in the appraisal process itself. The University's reliance on its established internal procedures did not remedy these defects, particularly after it had already acknowledged weaknesses in the appraisal system in an earlier case.

Conclusions and recommendations

The Commissioner concluded that the complaint was fully justified and that the University's handling of the appraisal amounted to maladministration under Article 22 of the Ombudsman Act. The performance appraisal was found to be procedurally defective and therefore unreasonable.

The Commissioner recommended that the 2024 performance appraisal be set aside and replaced by a fresh appraisal carried out by a different assessor. The new appraisal should be undertaken by a person with direct knowledge of the complainant's work during the relevant period and should take into account the nature of her duties, ensuring that she is not prejudiced by appraisal criteria that are not applicable to her position.

Outcome

The University of Malta accepted the Commissioner's recommendations and informed the Office of the Ombudsman that it would proceed with a fresh appraisal of the complainant's work by an independent senior academic with direct knowledge of the relevant period, in consultation with the current Head of Department. Once the appraisal is completed, a meeting will be held with the complainant to discuss the findings.

The case was therefore resolved through the University's acceptance of the Commissioner's recommendations and its commitment to conduct a new performance appraisal in accordance with the principles of fairness, procedural justice and good administration.