SUBJECT: - REQUEST FOR EXPUNGING OF REMARKS ENDORSED BY TECHNICAL REPORTING
OFFICER AND NON-ENDORSEMENT OF REMARKS OF TECHNICAL REVIEWING
AUTHORITY
Respected Sir,
I respectfully submit my formal representation regarding the remarks endorsed by
the Technical Reporting Officer on my Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the
period 2024-2025.
1. Contradictory Assessment by Technical Reporting Officer:
The Technical Reporting Officer has graded me “Very Good” (6.5) and at the
same time he has also endorsed some adverse remarks which are not in congruence
with his numerical assessment of my performance.
The adverse remarks endorsed by him are enumerated below:
a) He is young, disciplined, professionally good but not very much interested in
hospital work. The AME and the LMC cases of his unit never been completed up-
to the mark for that worthy IG has sought even explanation too.
b) Inter personal relations among the doctors at Bandipur was not very cordial.
c) He didn't reflected the exact number of OPD, IPD, AME and LMC cases he dealt
with.
Representation
Sir, following is submitted regarding the above adverse remarks:
a) Technical Reporting Officer on one hand acknowledged me as "Disciplined and
professionally good" and contrary to his own assessment he has endorsed "not very
much interested in hospital work". He has also mentioned that an explanation was
also sought by worthy IG KMR FTR. Whereas no explanation has been asked during
the period under report.
b) Regarding the remark "interpersonal relations among doctors at Bandipur were not
very cordial." It is emphasized that it is a vague statement as it has no evidentiary
support. Whereas all doctors have shared warm brotherhood and cordial
relationship.
c) So far as the exact number of OPD, IPD, AME and LMC cases dealt during period
under report is as follows -
Total AME done - 993
Total OPD - 2507
Total IPD - 31
LMC cases produced –1) April 2024 to December 2024 -69 Cases
2) January 2025 to April 2025 -15 Cases
-FDL visits with duration –
DATE DAYS LOCATION
11.04.2024 TO 22.05.2024 41 THQ NIRU
01.06.2024 TO 05.06.2024 04 WAMPURA, HANUMAN
AND VISITED OTHER FDLS
03.07.2024 03 WAMPURA AND VISITED
OTHER FDLS
05.09.2024 02 WAMPURA AND VISITED
OTHER FDLS
12.09.2024 01 HANUMAN AND VISITED
OTHER FDLS
13.09.2024 01 WAMPURA AND VISITED
OTHER FDLS
19.11.2024 01 1055 ARTY KANZALWAL
20.11.2024 02 WAMPURA AND VISITED
OTHER FDLS
22.11.2024 09 HANUMAN
17.01.2025 16 HANUMAN
02.03.2025 TO 08.04.2025 35 HANUMAN
TOTAL 115 DAYS
T/Ds
DATE DAYS LOCATION
20.09.2024 to 13.11.2024 55 Detailed for DME
RECRUITMENT SHQ BSF
GANDHINAGAR
01.08.2024 To 13.08.2024 13 MEDICAL COVER TO THE
MAIN BODY OF 78 BN BSF
FROM THQ NIRU TO
COOCHBEHAR , W.B
Additionally, I have also been awarded the IG(MEDICAL)CC, HQ SDG WC, Chandigarh
on dated 25/02/2025 in which it is clearly endorsed “he possesses in-depth medical
knowledge and clinical acumen and possess remarkable hospital administrative abilities
found during annual inspection 2023-2024.
2. Non-Endorsement of remarks of Technical Reviewing Authority
Remarks of Technical Reviewing authority couldn’t be recorded due to skip template
reflecting as
“………………..”
Representation
Whereas as per instructions contained in booklet of APAR Procedures and Instructions
Kindly ref Para 2.29
Quote 2.29 Assessment of the performance of a Government servant at more
than one level has been prescribed as a general rule with a view to
ensure maximum objectivity. While it might be difficult for an officer to
have a detailed knowledge of the qualities of a government servant two
levels below him, his overall assessment of the character, performance
a n d ability of the government servant reported upon i s vitally necessary
as a built in corrective. The judgment of the immediate superior can
sometimes be too narrow and subjective to do justice to the government
servant reported upon. The reviewing officer should, therefore, consider
it his duty to personally know and form his judgment of the work and
conduct of the officer reported upon. He should exercise positive and
independent judgement on the remarks of the reporting officer under the
various detailed headings in the form of report as well as on the general
assessment, and express clearly his agreement or disagreement with
these remarks. This is particularly necessary in regard to adverse
remarks (if any), where the opinion of the higher officer shall be
construed as the correct assessment. The reviewing officer is also free to
make his own remarks on points not mentioned by the reporting officer.
Such additional remarks would, in fact, be necessary where the report of
the IO is too brief, vague or cryptic.
14
(Deptt. of Personal OM No.51/5/72-Estt (A) dated 20 May 1972) Unquote
4.Prayer :
In light of facts mentioned above , I humbly request the following :
Sir, I earnestly seek your kind consideration of my representation and request to "Expunge
the Unjustified and Adverse Remarks" endorsed by Technical Reporting Officer and rectify
the procedural irregularities of not recording remarks of Technical Reviewing officer.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Savitoz paul
DCSMO
