To,

The Secretary (Posts)

Dak Bhawan
New Delhi.
(Advance Copy)

No.DD/2022/4 (Through Proper Channel) Dated 02/12/22

Sub.: Representation against the Unjust disposal of my representation against the ambiguous,
Puzzling & adverse remarks in my APAR of 3 months (90 days) 1stJan22 to 31stMar22

Ref. duly completed APAR disclosure statement dated 30/11/2022 from SPARROW, Copy
enclosed.

Respected sir,
I am pained and traumatized to state that my representation dated 30/7/22 in SPARROW (Copy
Enclosed), though based on rules, facts & merit, has not been given due consideration by the
incumbent Sr.DDG (PAF) Shri Shabaz Ali.
I was given Very Good rating with 7.5 as numerical grading by my reporting officer DAP Delhi
Ms Pooja Gupta,IPTAFS which was further seconded by the then GM(F) Delhi, Shri Rajendra
Prasad, IPTAFS. These ratings were given with adverse and contradictory comments. I then
represented against the adverse ratings and comments and submitted my representation as per
the procedure and well within due time.
However the due process of representation, which needs to be embedded in the principle of
objectivity, dispassionateness, and fairness, has not been followed by Sr DDG (PAF). He was
supposed to examine the facts mentioned in my representation while giving adjudication on the
representation and was required to pass a speaking order based on those facts; instead he
passed a sweeping order (enclosed at ……….) The process followed is devoid of due procedure
and merit and calls for the legal scrutiny. This was at least not expected from such a senior
officer.
Here I would also like to mention that as per DoP order no. CS-6-2/2019/APARs/15920 to 15962
dated 20/03/2020, My representation should have gone to CPMG ( the accepting authority) but
it is not known to me under which rule the same has been send to Sr DDG PAF. Further it is
submitted that during the period mentioned above, Shri GK Padhy was Sr DDG PAF and after he
superannuate on 30.06.22, Shri shabaz ali was given the link charge of Sr DDG PAF in addition to
his substantive charge of PrCCA Delhi. As per the rules the representation should have been
dealt by the regular officer or by the next higher authority in case of his/her superannuation.
However Shri Shabaz Ali has kept the representation pending for long time even surpassing the
DoPT prescribed date of 15th November 2022, and only after I gave the reminder on 18/11/22
(Copy enclosed), he has disposed off the representation by 23/11/22 without following the due
process and just making generalist sweeping comment “I have gone through the representation,
reminder and APAR reported and reviewed for the period from 01.01.2022 to 31.03.2022. I find
that fair assessment as per performance has been done by the reporting authority and
reviewing authority. Therefore, I find no merit in making any change. The case, therefore, stands
disposed off”.
In fact Sr DDG PAF has not even directed to both the reporting and reviewing officers for the
corrections of the factual errors.

Now coming to the Pen picture given in the APAR by the reporting and reviewing officers. There
are contradictions, based on whims and fancies, in the pen picture given by reporting and
reviewing officers. The pen picture was not based upon the performance at all as it was more to
do with me taking some stern actions against the non performing subordinates of the DAP
Delhi.
I would further like to mention that I was not given any communication/caution/ Memo for any
of the so called non performance, which is mentioned in my APAR by both the officers during
the duration of 3 months under the reporting period.
These comments are contradictory, ambiguous and at most be called as fictitious in nature. In
fact the officers does not seem to know the basic rules of APAR writing, to give example , In the
integrity column the remark has not been given as per rules. The Reporting officer has in para 4
of the Integrity column, mentioned as ‘Nothing adverse noted’, though as per the instructions
of the Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions OM no. 21011/27/2015-Estt.(A-II) dated
11/02/2016, only one option out of three can be given. The options are:
(a)Beyond doubt
(b)Since the integrity of the officer is doubtful, a secret note is attached.
(c)Not watched the officer’s work for sufficient time to form a definite judgement but nothing
adverse has been reported to me about the officer.
It is also submitted that the reporting officer has written the APAR for the period 01/04/21-
31/3/22, although she was supposed to write only for the period of 3 months from 01/01/22-
31/3/22 only i.e for the period of my working in the office of the DAP Delhi in the FY 2021-22.
Also it is pertinent to mention that she wrote the APAR only after so many reminders on
26/6/22 well beyond the dates mentioned by the DoPT for the APAR Cycle for the 2021-22.
I would now like to mention about the laxity with which reviewing officer has reviewed my
APAR , He has mentioned the following :
“The officer is hardworking, focussed, and sincere. She puts arguments clearly, logically and
skilfully.
“her relations with the subordinates are not professional, and sometimes she humiliates them.
She does not maintain professionalism in official duties. Her direct and impersonal approach of
handling official work is ineffective in boosting the morale of her subordinates. She is not just to
her subordinates.”
The above seemingly contradictory and arbitrary comments of the Reviewing officer not only
false, hypothetical, devoid of any merit and facts but also hysterical in nature. This comment
seems to be written with applying due mind and with the intent to punish me for doing my duty
with honesty, devotion and full integrity.
I would like submit that both the reporting and reviewing officers have tried to use APAR for
personnel enmity and as means of punishment for the reasons best known to them.
Various courts judgement in the past has made speaking orders that the APAR is a tool for the
performance evaluation and not for punishment. In fact in the recent Supreme Court
judgement in the case of Union of India and Ors. Versus G.R. Meghwal, (Copy attached at
Enclo.III ) dated. 23-Sep-2022, mentioned that not giving valid reasons while deciding the APAR
representation is not tenable and it also endorsed the fact that for writing adverse entries,
necessary caution/ chance to improve upon should have been given during the period in
question.
I will also take the opportunity to highlight my last APARs, I was rated as Outstanding in the last
3 APARs with grading of 9 by DG NICF and again received outstanding rating in the subsequent
APARs as well with the ratings of 10 & 9.62 respectively.
So it can be summarized that the due process of the entire APAR exercise has not been
followed by any of the three officers mentioned above. It seems that I have been selectively
targeted for highlighting the major financial irregularities in the o/o GM(PAF)DELHI, the
investigation for which has been ordered by the then Sr DDGPAF via OM no. 405(1)/2022/PA-
Vig/1070 dated 28/06/22 and is currently underway. The enquiry may be the reason for which
the DAP and the then Ex-GM PAF have decided to target me through APAR, as they never found
any ground for giving any caution/memo to me over the duration.

In the end I would also like to mention that I am due for regular STS promotion for which the
DPC is going to take place in the m/o December 2022, This uncalled for remarks may adversely
affect my promotion, Hence I am humbly requesting you to please intervene urgently in the
matter and issue necessary instructions for the expunging of the adverse and contradictory
remarks in Pen picture column of the APAR for the period of Jan22 to Mar 22 and also for the
up-gradation of my numerical grading to at least 8 , which I deserve for the efforts and work I
am doing in the department of Posts

With kind regards,

(Pooja Shokeen), IPTAFS-2018 batch

Dy Director
O/O GM PAF Delhi

Enclosed: As above