Panaji, 19th January, 2017 (Pausa 29, 1938)
SERIES II No. 42
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
845
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Education
__
Order
No. 1-1(2)-2006/SE/1297
Whereas, Smt. Maria A. Dias, Headmaster,
Government High School, Shristhal, Canacona vide
letter dated 14-8-2013 had given notice for
Voluntary Retirement with the request to accept
the same with effect from 12-09-2013.
And whereas, the Directorate of Education vide
letter No. 1-1(9)-2007/SE/466 dated 7-10-2013 had
requested the details of qualifying service of said
Smt. Maria A. Dias from the Directorate of Accounts.
And whereas, the Directorate of Accounts, South
Branch, Margao vide letter No. DA/SB/OS/2016-17/
/2285 dated 25-11-2016 has certified that the said
Smt. Maria A. Dias has completed the qualifying
service of 24 years 01 month and 06 days as on
12-09-2013.
Now, therefore, Government is pleased to accept
the above notice of voluntary retirement of Smt.
Maria A. Dias, Headmaster w.e.f. 12-09-2013 (f.n.)
by curtailing the notice period of three months
under Sub-Rule (3-A) (b) of Rule 48-A of CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972.
Accordingly, she stands retired voluntarily from
Government services w.e.f. 12-09-2013 (f.n.).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Gajanan P. Bhat, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Education).
Porvorim, 22nd December, 2016.
Note:-
There are five Extraordinary issues to the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 41 dated 12-01-2017
as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 12-01-2017 from pages 821
to 822 regarding Order from Department of Home.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 13-01-2017 from
pages 823 to 832 regarding Orders from
Department of Home.
(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 16-01-2017 from
pages 833 to 834 regarding Notifications from
Goa Legislature Secretariat.
(4) Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 16-01-2017 from
pages 835 to 836 regarding Order from
Department of Home.
(5) Extraordinary (No. 5) dated 18-01-2017 from
pages 837 to 844 regarding Order from
Department of Home.
________
Order
No. 1(2)-1-2015/SE/01
Government is pleased to order transfer and posting of the following Headmasters, Government High
Schools under the Directorate of Education, Porvorim, as detailed below with immediate effect:-
Sr.
Name of Headmaster
Present posting
Place of posting on transfer
No.
1
2
3
4
1.
Smt. Sujata D. Gaonkar
Headmaster,
Headmaster,
Government High School,
Government High School, Vaddem,
Savarde-Satari
Curdi, Sanguem against vacant
post, thereby relieving Smt. Vanita
S. Prabhudessai from the additional
charge.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
846
2.
Smt. Seema Anil Gaonkar
Headmaster,
Headmaster,
Government High School,
Government High School,
Valkini-Sanguem
Savarde-Satari.
Smt. Sujata D. Gaonkar shall also look after the charge of Headmaster, Government High School,
Valkini, Sanguem in addition to her own duties until further orders.
The transfer of Smt. Sujata D. Gaonkar is at her own request and hence she is not entitled to claim
T. A./D.A. and joining time as per rules in force. The transfer of Smt. Seema Anil Gaonkar is in public
interest.
Smt. Seema Anil Gaonkar shall get self relieved and should move first.
The date of relieving/joining should be communicated the respective Zonal Offices under intimation
to this office.
G. P. Bhat, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Education).
Porvorim, 3rd January, 2017.
________
Order
No. 1-1(9)-2016/SE/02
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide letter
No. COM/II/12/15(2)/2016/484 dated 23-12-2016, Government is pleased to declare lifting of probation
period and confirmation of the following Officers against the post of Vice-Principal, Teachers Training
College/Headmaster, Govt. High School/Vice-Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School in the Directorate
of Education with effect from the date of successfully completion of their probation period as shown in
column No. 4 below against their respective names :-
Sr.
Name of the Officers
Date of regular
Date of
Remarks
No.
appointment
successfully
as Vice Principal,
completion
Teacher's Training
of probation
College/Headmaster,
period
Govt. High Schools/
/Vice Principal,
Govt. Hr. Sec. Schools
1
2
3
4
5
1.
Shri M. V. Gadgil
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
Promoted on ad hoc basis as
Dy. Education Officer/Principal
GHSS/V.E.O. Jt. Secretary
GBSHSE/Dy. Director, SIE.
2.
Smt. Sunita N. Rajderkar/
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
-do-
/Nasnodkar
3.
Shri Fondu Savlo Naik
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
-do-
alias Narayan Savlo Naik
4.
Smt. Vishaka D. Pusekar
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
-do-
5.
Smt. Pushpa S. Pawaskar
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
-do-
alias R. S. Bandodkar
6.
Shri Ramkrishna Hegde
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
7.
Smt. Luisa Maria Joao
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
8.
Shri Vishnu B. Shinde
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
9.
Shri Subhash R. Mandrekar
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
10.
Shri Jaiwant W. Naik
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
11.
Smt. Lira Alvares Vasconcalos/ 03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
/Souza
1
2
3
4
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
847
12.
Kum. Geraldina Luiza
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
Mendes
13.
Shri Jose Francisco Gomes
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
Promoted on ad hoc basis as
Dy. Education Officer/Principal,
GHSS/V.E.O. Jt. Secretary-
-GBSHSE/Dy. Director, SIE.
14.
Shri Vinay D. Sahakari
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
15.
Smt. Asha R. Naique
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
16.
Smt. Daksha Yatin Gulavani
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
17.
Smt. Tami Thereza D’Souza
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
18.
Smt. Lina e Ferrao Fernandes
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
19.
Smt. Sucheta S. Burye
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
20.
Dr. Richard Cabral
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
21.
Smt. Carmel D’Souza
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
22.
Smt. Maria Coradina de
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
Jesus Pereira
23.
Shri Shaikh Amruddin
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
24.
Shri Atchutanand V. Vernekar
03-01-2007
02-01-2009
—
25.
Smt. Kavita M. Naik Gaunkar
30-06-2008
29-06-2010
—
26.
Shri Dayanand Chawdikar
30-06-2008
29-06-2010
—
27.
Smt. Anjali B. Malik
30-06-2008
29-06-2010
—
28.
Shri Mrutyunjay D. Angadi
30-06-2008
29-06-2010
—
29.
Smt. Celina A. Dias
30-06-2008
29-06-2010
—
30.
Shri Sairoj B. Dessai
30-06-2008
29-06-2010
—
31.
Shri Riyaz Ahmed Jamadhar
30-06-2008
29-06-2010
—
32.
Smt. Gouravva Hebballi
30-06-2008
29-06-2010
—
33.
Smt. Debora R. Fernandes
30-06-2008
29-06-2010
—
34.
Shri Govind Vaman Naik
29-04-2010
28-04-2012
—
35.
Smt. Reshma V. Verenkar
29-04-2010
28-04-2012
—
alias Chanekar
36.
Smt. Rita Fatima
29-04-2010
28-04-2012
—
Fernandes e Caldeira
37.
Smt. Jayashree P. Hebbalkar
29-04-2010
28-04-2012
—
alias Sheetal Kadam
38.
Shri Antonio Paul Braganza
29-04-2010
28-04-2012
—
39.
Smt. Ana Graca D’Sa
23-03-2011
22-03-2013
—
40.
Smt. Jyotsna Sarin
23-03-2011
22-03-2013
—
41.
Smt. Bertha Sardinha
23-03-2011
22-03-2013
—
42.
Smt. Rajashree S.
23-03-2011
22-03-2013
—
Haldankar @ Redkar
43.
Shri Sudesh N. Naik
23-03-2011
22-03-2013
—
44.
Shri Sudan Fati Naik Gaonkar
23-03-2011
22-03-2013
—
45.
Smt. Regina M. Carvalho Dias
23-03-2011
22-03-2013
—
46.
Shri Devidas H. Kudav
03-08-2012
02-08-2014
—
47.
Shri Srikrishna S. Naik
03-08-2012
02-08-2014
—
48.
Shri Jotiba I. Mali
03-08-2012
02-08-2014
—
49.
Shri Pradeep G. Masurkar
03-08-2012
02-08-2014
—
50.
Shri Sanjay N. Diukar
03-08-2012
02-08-2014
—
Gajanan P. Bhat, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Education).
Porvorim, 3rd January, 2017.
1
2
3
4
5
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
848
Department of Finance
Debt Management Division
__
Notification
No. 2/8/2010-Fin(DMU) P. F./462
Read: Notification No. 2/8/2010-FIN (DMU) P. F. dated 21-04-2015.
Government is pleased to accept the resignation tendered by Shri Sidharth Kuncalienkar as a Chairman
of Economic Development Corporation Ltd., w.e.f. 11-01-2017 and consequently to appoint Secretary
(Finance) to the post of Chairman, EDC, with immediate effect until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Michael M. D’Souza, Additional Secretary (Finance).
Porvorim, 17th January, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of General Administration
__
Order
No. 35/4/2005/GAD-III/100
Read: Order No. 35/4/2005-GAD dated 27-05-2013.
Order No. 35/4/2005-GAD dated 27-07-2016.
In partial modification of the Government order read in preamble, the Governor of Goa is pleased to
re-designate the following officers as Public Information Officer, Assistant Public Information Officer and
First Appellant Authority in respect of the Office of the Chief Minister/all Ministers, Minister Block,
Porvorim as required under Section 5 and sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Right to Information
Act, 2005.
Office concerned
Designation of the Officer
Designation of the Officer
Designation of the Officer
appointed as PIO
appointed as APIO
appointed as FAA
Chief Minister/ Under Secretary attached
1. Senior Assistant attached
Additional/Joint Secretary
/Ministers
to the Chief Minister/all
to Office of Chief Minister
(GA).
Ministers
2. Personnel Assistant attached
to Office of Ministers
Varsha S. Naik, Under Secretary (GA).
Porvorim, 9th January, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Labour
__
Order
No. 24/4/2011-Lab-ESI/06
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission
conveyed
vide
their
letter
No. COM/II/12/28(1)/2012/480 dated 22-12-2016,
Government is pleased to declare satisfactory
completion of probation as well as confirmation of
the following Insurance Medical Officers in E.S.I.
Scheme, under the Office of the Commissioner,
Labour & Employment with effect from the date of
their completion of probation period:
Sr.
Name of the Insu-
Date of
Date of comple-
No.
rance Medical
joining
tion of probation
Officer
period
1
2
3
4
1. Dr. Amavel Pereira 13-07-2011
12-07-2013
2. Dr. Poonam D.
13-07-2011
12-07-2013
Gaonkar (ST)
3. Dr. Anil Chauhan
24-08-2012
23-08-2014
4. Dr. Saroj Salelkar
24-08-2012
23-08-2014
5. Dr. Anantprajva S.
24-08-2012
23-08-2014
Shirodkar
6. Dr. Gayatri Mardol- 24-08-2012
23-08-2014
kar@ Jadhav
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
849
7. Dr. Sulakshana P.
31-08-2013
30-08-2015
Naik
8. Dr. Sidhesh L.
02-09-2013
01-09-2015
Tirodkar
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 3rd January, 2017.
________
Order
No. 28/56/2016-LAB/23
Whereas the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Royal Orchid Beach Resort
and Spa, Uttorda Beach, Salcete Goa, and it’s
workman, Mr. Chandan Phadte, Manager EDP,
represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule
hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “said
dispute”);
And whereas the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act
14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said
Act”), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Labour
Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under
Section 7 of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether Mr. Chandan Phadte, Manager
EDP, can be construed as “workman” as
per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)?
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in
the affirmative, then, whether the action of
the management of M/s. Royal Orchid
Beach Resort and Spa, Uttorda Beach,
Salcete, South Goa, in refusing employment
to Mr. Chandan Phadte, Manager EDP, with
effect from 03-11-2015, is legal and
justified?
(3) If the answer to the issue No. (2) above is
in the negative, then, what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 9th January, 2017.
________
Notification
No. 28/1/2016-LAB/Part-V/08
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II at Panaji-Goa on 17-10-2016 in reference
No. LC-II/IT/23/13 is hereby published as required
by Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 2nd January, 2017.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar,
Hon’ble Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/23/13
Smt. Archana Kare,
“KAMAL”,
Behind Holy Spirit Church,
Medsai, Margao-Goa
… Workperson/Party I
V/s
The Goa Urban Co-operative
Bank Limited,
Head Office, P. O. Box No. 135,
Panaji-Goa
… Employer/Party II
Workperson/Party I represented by Shri Subhash
Naik George.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri G. K.
Sardessai.
Panaji, Dated: 17-10-2016.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 04-07-2013,
bearing No. 28/27/2013-LAB/457 referred the
following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
1
2
3
4
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
850
Tribunal of Goa. The Hon’ble Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court in turn
assigned the present dispute to this Labour
Court-II of Goa for its adjudication vide her order
dated 08-07-2013.
“(1) Whether the action of the Management of
the Goa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited,
Panaji-Goa, in dismissing from service its
workperson Smt. Archana Kare, Clerk, with
effect from 20-11-2012, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the Workperson is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/23/13 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the Parties put in their
appearance. The Workperson/Party I (for short
‘Workperson’) filed her Statement of Claim on
07-10-2013 at Exb. 5. The facts of the case, in brief
as pleaded by the Workperson are that she was
employed with the Employer/Party II (for short
“Employer”) as a Clerk with effect from 01-09-1976.
She stated that initially she was posted at the
head office of the Employer till 26-04-1978. She
stated that thereafter, she worked at Margao branch
till 15-07-1990, pursuant to her transfer. She stated
that she worked at Vasco branch till the date of
her wrongful termination w.e.f. 20-11-2012,
pursuant to her re-transfer. She stated that all the
workmen of the Employer are the members of a
trade union namely Goa Urban Co-op. Bank
Employees Union. She stated that Mr. Subhash Naik
George is the President of the said union. She
stated that she was elected as General Secretary
of the said union in the year 2009 and again, in the
year 2011 at the general body meeting of the said
union.
3. She stated that she was issued a letter dated
05-03-2010, directing her to give a written
statement regarding the incident of theft that had
occurred in the Vasco branch of the Employer on
19-02-2010. She stated that vide her letter dated
13-03-2010, she replied to the said letter of the
Employer. She stated that she was thereafter issued
a notice of preliminary enquiry, informing her that
a preliminary investigation would be conducted
by Mr. Vijay A. Palekar. She stated that she attended
the said preliminary enquiry, before Adv. Shri Vijay
A. Palekar, however, no copy of proceedings were
given to her. She stated that thereafter, the
Employer issued to her a charge-sheet dated
26-07-2010, alleging certain acts of misconduct
against her. She stated that upon receipt of the
said charge-sheet, she requested the Employer
bank to supply her documents on which basis, she
has been issued a charge-sheet, in order to enable
her to submit reply to the said charge-sheet, by
her letter dated 28-07-2010. She stated that the
Employer bank, however, did not bother to reply to
her letter, nor supplied the documents, but straight
away went ahead with the enquiry proceedings.
4. She stated that Mr. Prasanna C. Chawdikar,
Advocate was appointed as Enquiry Officer, to hold
enquiry in respect of charge-sheet dated
26-07-2010. She stated that Mr. Gaurish N. Agni,
Advocate was appointed as Management
Representative. She stated that the Enquiry Officer
conducted an enquiry in respect of the said charge-
-sheet issued to her and submitted his findings, by
holding her guilty of charges of misconduct
levelled against her, vide his findings dated
31-08-2012. She stated that thereafter, the Employer
issued her, a show-cause notice dated 15-10-2012,
enclosing the findings of the Enquiry Officer and
asked to show-cause, as to why she should not be
dismissed from service. She stated that vide her
letter dated 06-11-2012, she replied to the said
show-cause notice of the Employer bank. She stated
that pursuant to her reply dated 06-11-2012, the
Employer issued a letter of dismissal dated
17-11-2012, dismissing her from service, with effect
from 20-11-2012. She submitted that aggrieved by
the decision of the Employer in dismissing her from
services w.e.f. 20-11-2012, she raised an industrial
dispute, in the matter of alleged illegal termination
of her services, and demanded for her reinstatement
with full back wages and continuity in service
before the Appellate Authority of the Employer.
She stated that a copy of the said letter was marked
to the Commissioner, Labour & Employment, Panaji,
Goa, for her intervention. She stated that the Labour
Commissioner, Panaji-Goa, admitted her dispute in
conciliation, however, the said dispute ended in
failure.
5. The Workperson challenged termination of
her services w.e.f. 20-11-2012, by contending to be
not only illegal and unjustified, but also malafide,
vindictive and as and by way of victimization for
her trade union activities. The Workperson
submitted that the departmental enquiry
conducted against her, is in gross violation of the
principles of natural justice as well as the service
rules applicable to the Employer bank. She
submitted that the said charge-sheet is vague as
there are no allegations leveled against her in the
said charge-sheet. She submitted that the contents
of para 1 to 5 of the said charge-sheet are statement
of facts and not allegations of misconduct. She
submitted that in the said charge-sheet issued to
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
851
her, no allegations of misconduct have been leveled
against her, though she have been charged for
misconduct namely (e) and (j).
6. She submitted that during the course of
enquiry, she had raised certain preliminary
objections before the Enquiry Officer, vide her
representation dated 04-09-2010, pertaining to
holding of the enquiry. She submitted that the Ld.
Enquiry Officer has however, mechanically and
wrongly disallowed her preliminary objections and
gave ruling in favour of the Employer bank. She
submitted that the Enquiry Officer gave his
findings mechanically, without application of mind
and without there being any evidence on record to
hold her guilty of the charges leveled against her.
She submitted that the said findings of the Enquiry
Officer are vague and biased in favour of the
Employer bank. She submitted that the said
findings of the Enquiry Officer are also perverse
and without any proper reasonings. She submitted
that there is no allegation that she disobeyed any
order of the Employer bank, but the Enquiry Officer
has held her guilty of willful insubordination or
disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of
the management. She submitted that the charges
leveled in the charge-sheet has not been proved in
the enquiry at all. She submitted that in fact, it has
come in the evidence on record that the Oriental
Insurance Company has made good the amount of
Rs. 5,00,000/- which was robbed from the bank,
while cash was in transit from the Employer bank
to the I.D.B.I. bank. She submitted that there is
nothing in the enquiry proceedings that she has
disobeyed any lawful and reasonable order of
the management or had indulged in willful
insubordination.
7. She submitted that the charges leveled
against her in the charge-sheet is a minor
misconduct as per service conditions/bipartite
settlement applicable to her. She submitted that in
terms of clause (j) of the Service Condition namely
“neglect of work, negligence in performing duties,
the maximum punishment is warning or censure
or adverse remark in service record or have her
increment stop for a period not longer than six
months. She submitted that the punishment of
dismissal cannot be imposed on her for negligence
as per service condition/bipartite settlement. She
submitted that at the time of dismissal, the
Employer bank did not pay her gratuity till date.
She stated that the Employer did not consider her
past record, while dismissing her from services as
required under the service condition. She
submitted that even assuming for the sake
arguments and without admitting that the charges
are proved, the punishment of dismissal imposed
upon her is highly disproportionate and extremely
harsh, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case. She submitted that this Hon’ble Labour
Court has powers u/s 11 of the I. D. Act to reassess
the evidence and reduce the punishment, taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case.
8. She submitted that during her tenure as
General Secretary of the union, the union had gone
on two days strike and indefinite strike action,
which was unlike by the Employer bank. She stated
that several employees were transferred after the
strike action and the Employer bank was looking
at opportunity to strike at her at appropriate time.
She submitted that since the date of her
termination, she is unemployed and have no source
of income. She stated that her husband is retired
and drew a small amount of pension. She stated
that besides, her husband has some money in
investment, from which, he draw some interest.
She submitted that with the help of her husband’s
income, she is able to make both ends meet. She
therefore prayed that she be reinstated in service
with full back wages and continuity in service
with cost and interest.
9. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workperson, by filing its written statement on
05-11-2013 at Exb.6. The Employer, as and by way
of preliminary objections, submitted that the
reference is bad-in-law and hence not maintainable
and that the present dispute of the Workperson is
not an ‘industrial dispute’ as defined under the
I. D. Act, 1947. The Employer further submitted
that there is non-application of mind by the
Appropriate Government, while referring the
present dispute.
10. The Employer admitted that the Workperson,
was employed with them as a ‘Clerk’ at its Vasco
branch. The Employer stated that on 19-02-2010,
the Workperson was instructed by its Branch
Manager to deposit a cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the
I.D.B.I. bank. The Employer stated that after some
time, her superior, Mrs. Amita Bhangui instructed
her to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- instead of Rs. 3,00,000/-
in the I.D.B.I. bank. The Employer stated that
accordingly, the Workperson prepared a debit slip,
payment voucher and posted the transaction in
the computer to that effect. The Employer stated
that the Workperson also entered an entry in cash
register and sent the same for approval of the
concerned officer i.e. Mrs. Amita Bhangui. The
Employer stated that after the Workperson sent
the register and the voucher to Mrs. Amita Bhagui,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
852
she instructed Mr. Ramnath Chodankar, sub-staff
to accompany the Workperson to I.D.B.I. bank for
depositing a cash of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Employer
stated that on having received her instructions,
the Workperson went to the payment cashier
alongwith Mr. Ramnath Chodankar, sub-staff
and collected from the payment cashier,
Mrs. Milinda Dessai an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
The Employer stated that the Workperson also
signed the register maintained by Mrs. Milinda
Dessai towards the receipt of cash of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
The Employer stated that on receipt of cash of
Rs. 5,00,000/- the Workperson handed over the same
to the sub-staff Mr. Ramnath Chodankar. The
Employer stated that the cash was placed in the
dickey of the scooter of the bank by Mr. Ramnath
Chodankar. The Employer stated that thereafter,
both of them proceeded to the I.D.B.I. bank for the
purpose of depositing the same amount. The
Employer stated that the scooter was driven by
Mr. Ramnath Chodankar. The Employer stated that
after reaching the I.D.B.I. bank, the cash was found
missing from the dickey of the scooter driven by
Mr. Ramnath Chodankar. The Employer stated that
the cash has not been traced till date. The
Employer therefore decided to conduct enquiry
against the Workperson for the commission of act
of misconduct as spelt out in the service condition
applicable to her, namely “willful insubordination
or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order
of the management or of a superior and doing any
act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross
negligence or negligence involving or likely to
involve the bank in serious loss”.
11. The Employer stated that accordingly, it has
issued a charge-sheet cum notice of enquiry dated
26-07-2010 to the Workperson. The Employer stated
that the Workperson did not submit her reply to
the charge-sheet cum notice of enquiry. The
Employer stated that the Enquiry Officer submitted
his findings, after appreciating the evidence on
record and held that the Workperson is guilty of
the charges of misconduct levelled against her,
vide charge-sheet cum notice of enquiry. The
Employer stated that it has considered the
proceedings of the enquiry, the findings of the
Enquiry Officer and concurred with the same. The
Employer submitted that considering the gravity
of proved misconduct, it has decided to discharge
the Workperson from the services. The Employer
stated that the Workperson was accordingly served
with a show-cause notice dated 15-10-2012, as to
why she should not be dismissed from service. The
Employer stated that the Workperson filed her reply
to the aforesaid show-cause notice issued to her.
The Employer stated that after carefully perusing
the contents of the said reply to the show-cause
notice and once again going through the
proceedings of the enquiry and the findings of the
Enquiry Officer, they did not find the explanation
of the Workperson satisfactory and hence it has
decided to dismiss the Workperson from the service.
12. The Employer submitted that the Workperson
was involved in the incident and had the
responsibility to deposit the amount given in her
physical possession. The Employer stated that the
said amount was stolen from her due to her
negligence. The Employer stated that the
Workperson was asked by the Branch Manager,
Vasco, by its letter dated 05-03-2010 to give a
written statement about the incident. The Employer
stated that from her conduct in handling cash, it
can be inferred that the Workperson was negligent,
while discharging the work of cash deposit, which
was entrusted to her. The Employer admitted that
as it was a preliminary investigation in the matter
and fully confidential in nature, wherein the
statement of all concerned staff related to the
incident were taken and there was no need to
provide copy of proceedings to all the concerned,
including the Workperson. The Employer
submitted that the preliminary enquiry is not a
part of the departmental enquiry and hence has
not affected the outcome of the said enquiry. The
Employer stated that in the charge-sheet itself, the
Workperson was informed that she may produce
such documents, she may deemed necessary to
produce and that she was also permitted to be
defended by a co-employee of her choice and was
also informed that she shall be given all the
opportunities put forward her views/defenses. The
Employer submitted that the bank has offered all
the opportunities to the Workperson to defend
herself in the enquiry and as such the Workperson
had an opportunity to give place all her defenses
in the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer. The
Employer submitted that all the documents, on
which basis the charge-sheet was issued, were
given to the Workperson during the course of
enquiry and the representative of the Workperson
have acknowledged for having received the same.
The Employer submitted that the charge-sheet
clearly states that there is a loss of Rs. 5,00,000/-
given in physical possession of the Workperson.
The Employer submitted that the said cash is lost,
due to sheer negligence of the Workperson and
not obeying the instructions to carry the cash as
per the rules of the bank. The Employer stated that
there is a bankers indemnity insurance policy with
the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The Employer
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
853
stated that the sum insured under this policy is
Rs. 3,00,00,000/-, in which, basic sum insured is
Rs. 7,50,000/-, sum insured on premium is
Rs. 1,92,50,000/- and sum insured in transit is
Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Employer stated that this
policy gives indemnity against the losses to the
bank, the bank has insured under this since the
year 1990 and continuous till date. The Employer
stated that the insurance company gives discount
in the yearly premium, if there is no claim to the
insurance. The Employer stated that there is
provision in the policy that the insured shall bear
the first 25% of each item or 2% of the basic sum
insured, whichever is higher. The Employer
therefore submitted that the bank has not received
a total amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as stated by the
Workperson. The Employer stated that since that
year, the bank has lost on its discount in the form
of no claim bonus. The Employer stated that the
bank has received Rs. 4,63,700/- only, thereby short
fall of Rs. 36,300/-. The Employer stated that the
bank has lost on no claims discounts on its yearly
premium, due to this claim to the insurance
company since 2011 till date, which amounting to
Rs. 8,26,904/-. The Employer stated that the said
amount of no claim discount has been forfeited
forever and every year. The Employer stated that it
has to suffer this loss due to the claim of
Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Employer stated that the
Workperson was given all the documents, on which
the charge-sheet was based upon in the enquiry.
13. The Employer admitted that the gratuity is
not paid to the Workperson. The Employer
submitted that as per Sec. 4 (6) (a) of the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972, the gratuity of an employee,
whose services have been terminated for any act,
willful omission or negligence causing any damage
or loss to, or destruction of property belonging to
the Employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of
damage or loss so caused and accordingly the
gratuity has been fully forfeited and not paid to
the Workperson. The Employer submitted that the
Enquiry Officer, on the basis of evidence on record
submitted a reasoned findings, holding the
Workperson guilty of the charges leveled against
her. The Employer stated that it has considered
the findings of the Enquiry Officer, concurred with
the same and considering the gravity of proved
misconducts, decided to dismiss her from service.
The Employer submitted that they have conducted
the enquiry in fair and proper manner and in the
event, this Hon’ble Court set aside the same on
any of the ground, they may be permitted to lead
evidence before this Hon’ble Court to prove the
charges of misconduct leveled against the
Workperson. The Employer denied the overall case
as pleaded by the Workperson and prayed for
dismissal of the present reference with cost.
14. Thereafter, the Workperson filed her
Rejoinder on 19-11-2013 at Exb.7. The Workperson,
by way of her Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates
all the submissions and averments made by her in
her claim statement to be true and correct and
denies all the statements and averments made by
the Employer in the Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
her. The Workperson submitted that the Employer
did not take into account her clean past record
before imposing the punishment, which is
mandatory.
15. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties
herein above respectively, this court framed certain
issues on 04-12-2013 at Exb. 9.
1. Whether a fair, proper & impartial enquiry
was conducted against the Workman/Party I
in accordance with the principles of natural
justice?
2. Whether the charges of the mis-conduct
leveled against Workman/Party I vide
charge-sheet dated 26-07-2010 has been
proved to the satisfaction of this court by
acceptable evidence?
3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that
the action of the Employer/Party II in
dismissing her services w.e.f. 20-11-2012 is
illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the present Order of Reference issued by
Government of Goa is bad-in-law in view of
the allegations made in paras a, b and c of
its Written Statement?
5. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to
any relief?
6. What Order? What Award?
16. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1:
In the affirmative.
(b) Issue No. 2:
Partly in the affirmative
and partly in the negative.
(c) Issue No. 3:
In the affirmative.
(d) Issue No. 4:
In the negative.
(e) Issue No. 5 & 6: As per final order.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
854
REASONS:
17. Issue Nos. 1 and 2:
Vide order dated 28-10-2015, passed in my
findings on the preliminary issue nos. 1 and 2, I
have come to the conclusion and held that a free,
fair and proper enquiry has been conducted against
the Workperson, in respect of the charge-sheet
dated 26-07-2010 and that the Employer could
prove only one charge of misconduct at Sr. No. (j)
doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the
bank or gross negligence or negligence or likely to
involve the bank in serious loss as spelt out in the
said charge-sheet dated 26-07-2010, to the
satisfaction of this court by acceptable evidence
and the another charge at Sr. No. (e) willful
insubordination or disobedience of any lawful or
reasonable order of the management or of a
superior, has not been proved. The issue No. 1 is
therefore answered in the affirmative and issue
No. 2 is answered partly in the affirmative and
partly in the negative.
18. Issue No. 4:
I am deciding the issue No. 4 first, prior to the
issue No. 3 as the said issue No. 3 goes to the very
root jurisdiction of this court.
The Employer, in its written statement filed in
the present proceedings, as and by way of
preliminary objections, submitted that the present
reference filed by the Workperson is bad-in-law
and hence not maintainable and that the present
dispute of the Workperson is not an ‘industrial
dispute’ as defined under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. The Employer further submitted that
there is non-application of mind by the Appropriate
Government while referring the present dispute.
I have heard the oral arguments of the Ld. Rep.
Shri Subhash Naik George, appearing for the
Workperson as well as Ld. Adv. Shri G.K. Sardessai,
appearing for the Employer Bank. I have also
carefully considered the oral submissions made by
the Ld. Representatives appearing for the
respective parties. I have also carefully perused
the records of the present case.
19. The Employer, in its written statement filed
in the present proceeding, as and by way of
preliminary objections, contended that the present
reference filed by the Workperson is bad-in-law
and hence not maintainable, that the present
dispute of the Workperson is not an industrial
dispute as defined under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and that there is non-application of mind
by the Appropriate Government while referring
the present dispute The said pleadings of the
Employer are vague in nature, as it does not
disclose any justification in support of its pleadings.
The Employer has also failed to produce on record
any material evidence, either oral or documentary,
in support of its aforesaid allegations.
20. Even otherwise, in the case in hand, it is not
in dispute that the Party I is a ‘workman’ within
the meaning of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. It
is also not in dispute that the Party II Bank is an
‘Employer’ within the meaning of section 2(j) of the
I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, the present dispute raised by
the Workperson against the Employer Bank
pertaining to her non-employment is an ‘industrial
dispute’ within the meaning of section 2(k) of the
I.D. Act, 1947 and as such, this court has every
jurisdiction to adjudicate the present reference.
Consequently, the Employer failed to prove its
allegations that the reference is bad-in-law for any
reasons, that the present dispute raised by the
Workperson is not an ‘industrial dispute’ as defined
under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and that
there is non-application of mind by the Appropriate
Government while referring the present dispute.
The issue No. 4 is therefore answered in the
negative.
21. Issue No. 3:
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Rep.
Shri Subhash Naik George, appearing for the
Workperson as well as Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai,
appearing for the Employer.
22. Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik George,
representing the Workperson, during the course of
his oral arguments, submitted that the Workperson
was issued a charge-sheet dated 26-07-2010, by
alleging charges of misconduct, namely (j) doing
any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or
gross negligence or negligence or likely to involve
the bank in serious loss and (e) willful
insubordination or disobedience of any lawful or
reasonable order of the management or of a
superior. He submitted that by order dated
28-10-2015, passed on the findings on the
preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, this Hon’ble Court
has held that a free, fair and proper enquiry has
been conducted against the Workperson, in respect
of the charge-sheet dated 26-07-2010 and that the
Employer could prove only one charge of
misconduct at Sr. No. (j) doing any act prejudicial
to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or
negligence or likely to involve the bank in serious
loss as spelt out in the said charge-sheet dated
26-07-2010, to the satisfaction of this court by
acceptable evidence and the another charge at
Sr. No. (e) willful insubordination or disobedience
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
855
of any lawful or reasonable order of the
management or of a superior, has not been proved.
He submitted that the Workperson was in the
employment of the Employer Bank continuously
from 01-09-1976 till the date of her wrongful
dismissal w.e.f. 20-11-2012. He submitted that
except the aforesaid misconduct, the Workperson
was never issued any memo or charge-sheet
alleging any act of misconduct against her in her
long service with the Employer Bank. He submitted
that the Workperson was elected as the general
secretary of the trade union namely Goa Urban
Co-op. Bank Employees union in the year 2009 and
again in the year 2011, which was affiliated to All
Goa Co-op. Bank Employees Federation. He
submitted that the said union has signed bipartite
settlement with the Employer Bank from time to
time revising wages and service conditions of its
members. He submitted that clause 12 (1) of the
said bipartite settlement on record at Exb.24
specifies the misconduct on the part of the
employees. He submitted that Clause 12 (2) of the
said bipartite settlement classifies the misconduct
as minor misconducts and major misconducts. He
submitted that sub clause (a) to (q) of the said
clause 12 (2) of the said bipartite settlement have
been termed as major misconducts. He therefore
submitted that the misconduct of negligence
proved against the Workperson is a minor
misconduct. He submitted that the Employer Bank
has recovered an amount of Rs. 4,63,700/- out of the
alleged theft of the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from
the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., after adjusting the
deductions under the Banker’s Blanket Policy
No. 163700/48/2010/167 and thus the Employer
Bank has hardly suffered a loss to the extent of
Rs. 36,300/- He therefore submitted that taking into
consideration, the past clean, unblemished record
of the Workperson, in her long service and also
taking into consideration, the proved minor
misconduct of negligence, the punishment of
dismissal imposed on the Workperson is extremely
harsh and disproportionate to the facts and
circumstances of the case. He submitted that
Section 11 of the I.D. Act, 1947 empowers the Labour
Court to re-assess the evidence and reduce the
punishment taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case. In support of his oral
submissions, he relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in the case of Kailash Nath
Gupta v/s. Enquiry Officer (R.K. Rai), Allahabad Bank
and Ors., reported in 2003 II CLR 72.
23. On the contrary, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai,
representing the Employer Bank, during the course
of his oral arguments submitted that the
Workperson was issued a charge-sheet dated
26-07-2010, alleging an act of misconduct of (j) doing
any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or
gross negligence or negligence or likely to involve
the bank in serious loss and (e) willful
insubordination or disobedience of any lawful or
reasonable order of the management or of a
superior. He submitted that by order dated
28-10-2015, passed on the findings on the
preliminary issue Nos. 1 and 2, this Hon’ble Court
has held that a free, fair and proper enquiry has
been conducted against the Workperson in respect
of the charge-sheet dated 26-07-2010 and that the
Employer could prove only one charge of
misconduct at Sr. No. (j) doing any act prejudicial
to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or
negligence or likely to involve the bank in serious
loss as spelt out in the said charge-sheet dated
26-07-2010, to the satisfaction of this court, by
acceptable evidence and the another charge at
Sr. No. (e) willful insubordination or disobedience
of any lawful or reasonable order of the
management or of a superior, has not been proved.
He submitted that due to the said act of negligence
on the part of the Workperson, the Employer Bank
has not only suffered huge monetary loss, but also,
lost the faith created by its several customers, by
depositing their amount in the custody of the
Employer Bank. He therefore submitted that the
misconduct levelled and proved against the
Workperson is a major misconduct. He submitted
that as a result of commission of the said
misconduct, the Employer lost confidence reposed
in the Workperson. He submitted that thus taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the entire case as well as the seriousness of the
proved misconduct levelled against the
Workperson, the punishment of dismissal imposed
upon her is just, fair and proper and proportionate
to the proved misconduct. In support of his oral
submissions, he relied upon two judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India one in the case
of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v/s. M.
Chandrashekhar Reddy and Ors., reported in
(2005) 2 SCC 481 and another in the case of Homba
Gowda Educational Trust and Anr., v/s. State of
Karnataka and Ors., reported in (2006) 1 SCC
430.
I have carefully perused the entire records
of the present case. I have considered the
oral submissions advanced by the Ld. Rep.
Shri Subhash Naik George, appearing for the
Workperson as well as Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai,
appearing for the Employer Bank and is of the
considered opinion as under.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
856
24. It appears from the pleadings of the
Workperson, filed in the present proceedings that
she has challenged her order of dismissal, mainly
on the ground that the enquiry held against her, is
not fair and proper and that the charges of
misconduct leveled against her, vide charge sheet
dated 26-07-2010, have not been proved to the
satisfaction of this Court, by acceptable evidence.
The Workperson finally contended that without
prejudice and without admitting that the charges
of misconduct are proved against her, the
punishment of dismissal meted out to her is highly
disproportionate and extremely harsh as per the
bipartite settlement, negligence is a minor
misconduct.
25. In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
v/s. N.B. Narawade reported in 2005 (I) CLR 803,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “It is no
doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in
the I.D. Act, 1947, certain amount of discretion is
vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal
in interfering with the quantum of punishment
awarded by the management where the workman
concerned is found guilty of misconduct. The said
area of discretion has been very well defined by the
various judgments of this court referred to herein
above and it is certainly not unlimited as has been
observed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The discretion, which can be exercised under Sec.
11-A is available only on the existence of certain
factors like punishment being disproportionate to
the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the
conscience of the court, or the existence of any
mitigating circumstances which require the
reduction of the sentence or past conduct of the
workman which may persuade the Labour Court to
reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such
factor existing, the Labour Court cannot by way of
sympathy alone exercise the power u/s. 11-A of the
Act and reduce the punishment”.
26. In the case of Chairman & Managing
Director, United Commercial Bank and Other
V/s P. C. Kakkar., reported in 2003 – LLR 436, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that
“the court should not interfere with the
administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or
suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking
to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it
was in defiance of logic or moral standards. Only
where the Court finds that a punishment is
shockingly disproportionate it must record reasons
for coming to such conclusion and mere expression
that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate
could not meet the requirement of law. Further the
charges against Respondent not being casual in
nature, but being serious, the High Court was not
justified in interfering with the quantum of
punishment”.
27. The Principle laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in its aforesaid respective
judgments is well established and there is no
dispute about the same. Thus, it is settled law that
the discretion of the court to alter or reduce the
punishment as empowered u/s. 11-A of the I.D.
Act, 1947 is not absolute. The discretion, which
can be exercised u/s 11-A is available only on the
existence of certain factors, like punishment being
disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, so
as to disturb the conscience of the Court, or the
existence of any mitigating circumstances, which
requires the reduction of the sentence or the past
conduct of the Workman, which may persuade the
Labour Court to reduce the punishment.
28. Vide order dated 28-10-2015, passed in my
findings on the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, I
have come to the conclusion and held that a free,
fair and proper enquiry has been conducted against
the Workperson in respect of the charge-sheet
dated 26-07-2010 and that the Employer could
prove only one charge of misconduct at Sr. No. (j)
doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the
bank or gross negligence or negligence or likely to
involve the bank in serious loss as spelt out in the
said charge-sheet dated 26-07-2010, to the
satisfaction of this court by acceptable evidence
and the another charge at Sr. No. (e) willful
insubordination or disobedience of any lawful or
reasonable order of the management or of a
superior, has not been proved.
29. Hence, the contentions of the Workperson
that no fair and proper inquiry has been conducted
against her, is without any merits. As regards the
charges leveled against her, vide charge-sheet
dated 26-07-2010, have not been proved at all, it is
partly correct to the extent of charge at Sr. No. (e)
willful insubordination or disobedience of any
lawful or reasonable order of the management or of
a superior.
Thus, the only question remains to be decided
is that the punishment of dismissal from service
imposed upon the Workperson is proportionate to
the proved misconduct.
30. The evidence on record indicates that the
service conditions of the Workperson as well as
other employees of the Employer Bank are governed
by the said bipartite settlement signed between
the Employer with its employees union, which is
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
857
on record at Exb. 24. Clause XII (1) of the said
bipartite settlement (Exb. 24) specifies certain acts
or omissions among others as misconduct on the
part of the employee in addition to what has been
defined in Staff Accountability Policy of the
Employer Bank, which are numbered as (a) to (hh).
Clause XII (2) of the said bipartite settlement
categorized the said misconducts as stated in
Clause XII (1) as major misconducts and minor
misconducts. As per the said clause XII (2) of the
said bipartite settlement, sub-clause (a) to (q)
of Clause XII (1) have been termed as major
misconducts and sub-clause (r) to (hh) of Clause XII
(1) have been termed as minor misconducts.
Similarly Clause XV of the said bipartite settlement
specifies various punishments. Sub-Clause (1) of
Clause XV of the bipartite settlement laid down
punishments to an employee, who found guilty of
gross misconducts such as (a) be dismissed without
notice, or (b) be warned or censured, or have an
adverse remark entered against him, or (c) be fined,
or (d) have his increment stopped, or (e) have his
misconduct condoned and be merely discharged,
or (f) be suspended without wages for not
exceeding 15 days. Similarly, Clause (2) of Clause
XV of the bipartite settlement laid down
punishments to an employee, who found guilty of
minor misconducts may (a) be warned or censured,
or (b) have an adverse remark entered against him,
or (c) have his increment stopped for a period not
longer than six months.
31. The Employer Bank also framed its Staff
Accountability Policy in pursuance to the directions
of Reserve Bank of India. The said Staff
Accountability Policy of the Employer Bank laid
down certain guidelines pertaining to the working
of its Employer and which forms the service
conditions of the employees of the Employer Bank
in addition to its bipartite settlement. It defines
the term ‘Accountability’ and it means being
responsible for one’s own actions/inactions. It
further defines the staff accountability as
‘ownership for action taken or not taken, when the
situation called for such action’. The said Staff
Accountability Policy has been classified as System
Accountability and Human Accountability. Further,
the term human accountability has been attributed
to any of the following (a) bonafide mistake,
(b) gross indifference/negligence and (c) malafide
intensions. As per the said policy, any action/
/absence of action resulting in revenue loss/
/leakage, but without malafide intensions has been
specified as gross indifference/negligence.
32. In the case in hand, undisputedly, the
Workperson was working with the Employer Bank
as a ‘Clerk’ continuously w.e.f. 01-09-1976 till the
date of dismissal of her services w.e.f. 20-11-2012.
The Workperson was not issued any single memo
or charge-sheet in her entire service period with
the Employer Bank, except the charge-sheet dated
26-07-2010. It is not in dispute that the Workperson
was a member of the Goa Urban Co-op. Bank
Employees Union, which was affiliated to All Goa
Co-op. Bank Employees Federation. It is further not
in dispute that the Workperson was elected as a
general secretary in the year 2009 and again
re-elected in the year 2011 in the general body
meeting of the said union. The misconduct charged,
vide charge-sheet dated 26-07-2010 and proved
against the Workperson is “(j) doing any act
prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross
negligence or negligence or likely to involve the
bank in serious loss”. The said act of misconduct
on the part of the Workperson has been termed as
major misconduct in terms of clause 12 of the
bipartite settlement at Exb. 24. The said
misconduct is altogether different than the
misconduct specified at sub-clause (t) of clause XII
misconduct i.e. “neglect of work, negligence in
performing duties”, which is a minor misconduct.
33. The allegations levelled in the charge-sheet
issued to the Workperson are that on receipt of
cash of Rs. 5,00,000/-, she handed over the to the
sub-staff Mr. Ramnath Chodankar, that the cash
was placed in the dickey of the scooter of the bank
by Mr. Ramnath Chodankar, that thereafter, both
proceeded to IDBI bank on the scooter of the bank
for the purpose of depositing the said amount, that
the said scooter was driven by the said
Mr. Ramnath Chodankar and that after reaching
the IDBI bank the cash was found missing from the
dickey of the scooter driven by Mr. Ramnath
Chodankar. The evidence on record indicates that
the Employer bank lodged an FIR in Vasco Police
Station in respect of the said missing amount of
Rs. 5,00,000/- against an unknown person. The
aforesaid act/omission on the part of the
Workperson is a gross indifference/negligence
within the meaning of Staff Accountability Policy
of the Employer. Taking into consideration, the
entire facts and circumstances of the case and the
role played by the Workperson, it does not show
any malafide intension of the Workperson.
34. The evidence on record indicates that the
Employer Bank has recovered an amount of
Rs. 4,63,700/- out of the alleged theft of the amount
of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. after adjusting the deductions under the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
858
Banker’s Blanket Policy No.163700/48/2010/167.
Thus, the Employer Bank suffered instant loss to
the extent of Rs. 36,300/-. Further, it is implied that
as a consequences of aforesaid claim made by the
Employer Bank to the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
it has lost no claim discount on its yearly premium,
which the Employer Bank would have otherwise
entitled from the insurance company. Thus, the
Employer suffered a huge loss every year on its
yearly payment of the premium.
35. Taking into consideration the past clean,
unblemished record of the Workperson in her 36
years prolong service in the Employer bank, the
allegations levelled in the charge-sheet issued to
her, explanation submitted by the Workperson to
the show-cause notices issued to her etc. in my
considered opinion, the punishment of dismissal
imposed on the Workperson is extremely harsh and
disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of
the case. The said punishment of dismissal from
service is bad-in-law & hence set aside.
36. Ld. Adv. Shri G. Sardessai, representing the
Employer Bank, during the course of his oral
arguments submitted that the order of termination
issued to the Workperson is just and fair and in
proportionate to the act of misconduct committed
by her as it lost the confidence reposed in the
Workperson. Upon perusal of the dismissal order
dated 17-11-2012 (Exb.22) issued to the Workperson,
it does not indicate that the said dismissal of the
Workperson was on account of loss of confidence
nor does it disclose the mitigating circumstances.
Hence, I do not agree that the Employer dismissed
the service of the Workperson on account of loss of
confidence.
37. In the case of Kailash Nath Gupta (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para 11 and
12 of its judgment observed as under:-
“11...…in the background or what has been
stated above, one thing is clear that the power of
interference with the quantum of punishment is
extremely limited. But when relevant factors are not
taken note of, which have some bearing on the
quantum of punishment, certainly the court can
direct re-reconsideration or in an appropriate case
to shorten litigation, indicate the punishment to be
awarded. It is stated that there was no occasion in
the long past service indicating either irregularity
or misconduct of the appellant except the charges
which were the subject matter of his removal from
service. The stand of the appellant as indicated above
is that though small advances may have become
irrecoverable, there is nothing to indicate that the
appellant had misappropriated any money or had
committed any act of fraud. If any loss has been
caused to the bank (which he quantifies at about
Rs. 46,000/-) that can be recovered from the appellant.
As the reading of the various articles of charges go
to show, at the most there is some procedural
irregularity which cannot be termed to be negligence
to warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from
service.
12. These aspects do not appear to have been
considered by the High Court in the proper
perspective. In the fitness of things, therefore, the
High Court should examine these aspects afresh.
The consideration shall be limited only to the
quantum of punishment and not to any other
question. As the appellant would have
superannuated in the normal course in the year 1994,
and the matter is pending for a long time, the High
Court is requested to dispose of the matter within
six months from the date of receipt of this order. It
is made clear that no opinion has been expressed by
us as to what would be the appropriate punishment.
In this view the impugned order is set aside”.
The facts of the aforesaid case before the Hon’ble
Apex Court are totally different than the case in
hand and as such the principle laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable to the case
in hand.
38. In the case of Hombe Gowda Education Trust
and Anr. (supra) before the Hon’ble Apex Court,
the Respondent No. 3, a teacher, was charge-
-sheeted for commission of a serious offence. He
was found guilty by the Tribunal of having
assaulted the Principal of the institution. Both the
Tribunal as also the High Court have arrived at a
concurrent finding of fact that despite grave
provocation on the part of the Principal,
Respondent No.3 cannot be absolved of the charges
levelled against him. It may be true that no
departmental disciplinary proceeding was
initiated against the Principal of the institution,
but the same by itself would not be a relevant fact
for imposing a minor punishment upon the
respondent. It may further be true that Respondent
3 committed the offence under a grave provocation,
but the Tribunal as also the High Court
categorically held that the charges against him
were established. The Hon’ble Apex Court, further
held that “Assaulting a superior at a workplace
amounts to an act of gross indiscipline. The
respondent is a teacher. Even under grave
provocation, a teacher is not expected to abuse the
head of the institution in a filthy language and
assault him with a chappal. Punishment of dismissal
from services, therefore cannot be said to be wholly
disproportionate, so as to shock one’s conscience”.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
859
The facts of the aforesaid case before the Hon’ble
Apex Court are totally different than the case in
hand and as such the principle laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable to the case
in hand.
39. In the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
(supra), before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the
Respondent terminated the services of the
Appellant, the Assistant Grade I by holding
disciplinary enquiry on account of his misconduct
that he had stealthily taken away the title
documents of the properties deposited with the
Employer as a security towards equitable mortgage
created in favour of the Appellant. The Labour
Court held that the punishment of dismissal from
service is harsh in the circumstances. The Single
Bench as well as Division Bench of Hon’ble High
Court dismissed the writ petitions as well as writ
appeal filed by the parties. The Respondent
therefore filed the appeal before the Hon’ble Apex
Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while allowing
the appeal filed by the Appellant in para 26 of its
judgment observed as under:
“26. That apart, the reasons given by the Labour
Court to reduce penalty are reasons which are not
sufficient for the purpose of reducing the sentence
by using its discretionary power. The fact that the
misconduct now alleged is the first misconduct again
is no ground to condone the misconduct. On the
facts of this case as recorded by the Labour Court
the loss of confidence is imminent and no finding
has been given by the courts below, including the
Labour Court, that either the fact of loss of
confidence or the quantum of punishment is so harsh
as to be vindictive or shockingly disproportionate.
Without such finding based on records, interference
with the award of punishment in a domestic inquiry
is impermissible.”
The facts of the aforesaid case before the Hon’ble
Apex Court are totally different than the case in
hand and as such the principle laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable to the case
in hand.
It is therefore held that the Workperson
succeeded in proving that the action of the
Employer in dismissing her service w.e.f.
20-11-2012 is illegal and unjustified. The issue
No. 3 is therefore answered in the affirmative.
40. Issue No. 5:
While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I
have come to the conclusion and held that the
action of the Employer in dismissing the
Workperson from its service with effect from
20-11-2012, is illegal and unjustified, being
extremely harsh and disproportionate to the proved
misconduct.
41. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s.
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. ED.)
and Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if the order of
termination is void ab initio, the Workman is
entitled to full back wages. The relevant para of
the decision is extracted hereunder:
“22. The very idea of restoring an employee to
the position which he held before dismissal or
removal or termination of service implies that
the employee will be put in the same position
in which he would have been but for the illegal
action taken by the employer. The injury
suffered by a person, who is dismissed or
removed or is otherwise terminated from service
cannot easily be measured in terms of money.
With the passing of an order which has the
effect of severing the employer–employee
relationship, the latter’s source of income gets
dried up. Not only the concerned employee,
but his entire family suffers grave adversities.
They are deprived of the source of sustenance.
The children are deprived of nutritious food
and all opportunities of education and
advancement in life. At times, the family has to
borrow from the relatives and other
acquaintance to avoid starvation. These
sufferings continue till the competent
adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of
the action taken by the employer. The
reinstatement of such an employee, which is
preceded by a finding of the competent
judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the
action taken by the employer is ultra vires the
relevant statutory provisions or the principles
of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim
full back wages. If the employer wants to deny
back wages to the employee or contest his
entitlement to get consequential benefits, then
it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove
that during the intervening period the
employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same emoluments. Denial of back
wages to an employee, who has suffered due
to an illegal act of the employer would amount
to indirectly punishing the concerned employee
and rewarding the employer by relieving him
of the obligation to pay back wages including
the emoluments.”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is well recognized and is also applicable to
the case in hand.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
860
42. In the case in hand, the evidence on record
indicates that the Workperson was in the
employment of the Employer bank continuously
from 01-09-1976 till the date of her illegal date of
dismissal from service w.e.f. 20-11-2012. The
evidence on record indicates that except the
misconduct of gross negligence as stated in the
present case, the past records of the Workperson is
clean and unblemished. In terms of clause 9 of the
8th bipartite settlement at Exb. 26, the age of
retirement of the employees of the Employer bank
is 58 years and that ordinarily, the management
shall have right to extend the retiring age by three
years in certain circumstances, which the
management considers fit and proper, provided
reasons to that effect are recorded in writing.
However, there is nothing on record to show the
exact date of birth or age of the Workperson as on
today. It is settled principle of law that Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal is not empowered to
substitute its punishment, which was awarded to
the Workperson. In the circumstances, the
Workperson is entitled for reinstatement in service,
if clause 9 of the 8th bipartite settlement at Exb.26
permits her.
43. The oral evidence of the Workperson on
record indicates that she is unemployed and have
no source of income, since the date of termination
of her service.The Employer also failed to bring on
record any cogent evidence to show that the
Workperson is gainfully employed since the date
of termination of her service till date.
Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its aforesaid judgment, the Workperson is
also entitled for full back wages, continuity in
service and all other consequential benefits. The
Workperson is therefore ordered to be reinstated
in the service of the Employer (if her age is below
the prescribed age of retirement) along with full
back wages, continuity in service and all other
consequential benefits.
In view of above, I proceed to pass the following
order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of the Manage-
ment of the Goa Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd.,
Panaji-Goa, in dismissing from service its
Workperson Smt. ArchanaKare, Clerk, with
effect from 20-11-2012, is illegal and
unjustified.
2. The management of the Employer namely the
Goa Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., Panaji-Goa, is
hereby directed to reinstate the Workperson
Smt. Archana Kare (if her age is below the
prescribed age of retirement) along with full
back wages, continuity in service and all other
consequential benefits.
3. No Order as to Cost.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 7/30/2014-PER/90
On the recommendations of Goa Services Board
and with the approval of the Government, the
transfers of the following Officers are ordered with
immediate effect, in public interest:-
S/N Name of the Officer
Transferred and posted as
1. Smt. Nila Mohanan,
Collector, North vice
IAS,
Shri Agnelo A. J. Fernandes
Secretary (Education) transferred.
,2. Shri Agnelo A. J.
Director of Environment
Fernandes,
with addl. charge of
Collector, North
Member Secretary, Goa
Coastal Zone Management
Authority vice Shri
Narayan Gad transferred.
3. Shri Narayan Gad,
Awaiting posting.
Director of Environment
with addl. charge of
Member Secretary,
Goa Coastal Zone
Management Authority
This issues with the concurrence of Joint Chief
Electoral Officer vide his letter No. 2-2-2008/Elec/
/112 dated 05-01-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Meghana Shetgaonkar, Under Secretary
(Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 6th January, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
861
Order
No. 22/8/2007-PER/92
The Governor of Goa is pleased to order the
transfer and posting of the following IPS officers
and GPS officers of Police Department, with
immediate effect in public interest.
Sr. Name of Officer
Present posting
Transfer on
No.
posting
1. Smt. Chandan
S. P.
S. P. (South
Choudhary, IPS
Commandant District).
IRBn 1,2,3
2. Shri Karthik
S. P. (Crime)
Supdt. of
Kashyap, IPS
Police
North District.
3. Shri Shekhar
S. P. (South
S.P.
Prabhudessai,
District)
Commandant
GPS
IRBn 1,2,3.
4. Shri Umesh Y.
Supdt. of Police, S. P. (Crime).
Gaonkar, GPS
North District
This issues with the approval of Election
Commission of India conveyed vide letter No. 2/2/
/2008-ELEC/161 dated 06-01-2017 from the Office
of Chief Electoral Office, Altinho, Panaji-Goa.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 6th January, 2017.
________
Order
No. 6/13/2016-PER/121
On the recommendations of Goa Services Board
and with the approval of the Government, the
following Junior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service
are transferred and posted with immediate effect,
in public interest.
Sr. Name of the Officer
Posted as
No.
and Designation
1. Shri Sudhir Kerkar,
Deputy Director of
Asst. Commissioner
Panchayat, North.
of Excise-II
2. Shri Kapil Phadte,
Administrator of Communi-
Deputy Director of
dade, Central Zone thereby
Panchayat, North
relieving Shri Pundalik
Khorjuenkar of additional
charge.
Smt. Trupti Manerkar, Under Secretary (Law-
-Estt) shall hold additional charge of the post of
Dy. Collector, DRO, North, in addition to her own
duties.
Shri Satyawan Bhivshet, Asst. Commissioner of
Excise-I shall hold additional charge of the post of
Asst. Commissioner of Excise in addition to his
own duties.
All the above officers shall complete the process
of handing over/taking over by 11-01-2017 from the
date of issue of order and submit compliance.
This issues with the concurrence of Election
Commission of India vide letter No. 437/6/GOA-
-LA/2017 dated 10-01-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Yetindra M. Maralkar, Additional Secretary
(Personnel).
Porvorim, 10th January, 2017.
________
Order
No. 7/30/2014-PER/122
Read: Order No. 7/30/2014-PER B dated 12-12-2016.
Consequent to the order read in the preamble,
Shri Sanjay Goel, IAS shall hold the charge of
Department of Administrative Reforms and
Factories & Boilers held by Shri Virendra Kumar,
IAS with immediate effect in addition to his own
duties.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Yetindra M. Maralkar, Additional Secretary
(Personnel).
Porvorim, 10th January, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 5/1/2014-I/PHD/01
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/56(1)/2016/463 dated 15-12-2016,
Government is pleased to promote Smt. Iva Maxie
Fernandes, Senior Food Safety Officer in the
Directorate of Food & Drugs Administration,
Bambolim to the newly created post of Designated
Officer (Group “A”, Gazetted) in the pay scale of
PB-3 Rs. 15,600-39,100 plus Grade Pay of
Rs. 5,400/- on regular basis with immediate effect.
The above Officer shall be on probation for a
period of two years.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
862
The above Officer shall exercise her option for
fixation of pay in the promotional grade, in terms
provisions of F. R. 22 (I) (a) (1) within a period of one
month from the date of issue of this Order. The
option once exercised shall be final.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Smita Hede, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 30th December, 2016.
________
Order
No. 4/9/2016-II/PHD/08
Read: Memorandum No. 4/9/2016-II/PHD dated
23-12-2016.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/30(6)/2016/477 dated 21-12-2016,
Government is pleased to appoint Ms. Shweta
Bhushan Savaikar to the post of Lecturer in Clinical
Psychology, Allied Health Science Courses” (Group
‘A’, Gazetted) under the Goa Medical College,
Bambolim, on temporary basis in the pay scale of
Pay Band-3: Rs. 15,600-39,100+GP of Rs. 5,400
(pre-revised), with immediate effect and as per the
terms and conditions contained in the
Memorandum cited above.
Ms. Shweta Bhushan Savaikar shall be on
probation for a period of two years.
Ms. Shweta Bhushan Savaikar has been declared
medically fit by the Medical Board. Her
appointment shall be subject to verification of
character and antecedents by the concerned
District Magistrate.
The above appointment is made due to creation
of new post of Lecturer in Clinical Psychology vide
Order No. 4/4/2013-II/PHD dated 05-05-2015.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Smita S. Hede, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 30th December, 2016.
________
Order
No. 6/2/2016-III/PHD/10
Read: Memorandum No. 6/2/2016-III/PHD dated
16-12-2016.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/35(1)/2016/446 dated 08-12-2016,
Government is pleased to appoint Dr. Anushka Da
Silva Pereira to the post of “Pathologist” (Group ‘A’,
Gazetted) in the Institute of Psychiatry and Human
Behaviour, Bambolim on temporary basis in the pay
scale of Pay Band-3: Rs. 15,600-39,100+GP Rs. 5,400/-
(pre-revised), with immediate effect and as per the
terms and conditions contained in the
Memorandum cited above.
Dr. Anushka Da Silva Pereira shall be on
probation for a period of two years.
Dr. Anushka has been declared medically fit by
the Medical Board. Her appointment shall be
subject to verification of character and antecedents
by the concerned District Magistrate.
The above appointment is made against the
vacancy occurred due to the revival of the post of
Pathologist vide Order No. 6/1/2008-III/PHD dated
13-08-2015.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Smita S. Hede, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 30th December, 2016.
________
Order
No. 45/3/2009-I/PHD/08
Read: Memorandum No. 45/3/2009-I/PHD dated
12-07-2016.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/24(3)/2016/120 dated 09-06-2016,
Government is pleased to appoint Dr. Rohan
Fernandes to the post of Junior Gynaecologist
(Group ‘A’, Gazetted) in the Pay Band-3, Rs. 15,600-
-39,100 with Rs. 5,400/-Grade Pay under the
Directorate of Health Services with immediate effect
as per the terms and conditions contained in the
Memorandum cited above.
Dr. Rohan Fernandes shall be on probation for a
period of two years.
Dr. Rohan Fernandes is posted against the post
created at Primary Health Centre, Shiroda vide
Order No. 48/1/2015-I/PHD/421 dated 08-03-2016.
Dr. Rohan Fernandes, has been declared
medically fit by the Medical Board and his
antecedents have been verified by the Additional
District Magistrate, South Goa, Margao.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Smita S. Hede, Under Secretary (Health-II)/Link.
Porvorim, 3rd January, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
863
Order
No. 4/3/2008-IV/PHD/39
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission conveyed vide their letter No.
COM/II/12/14(4)/2013/479 dated 22-12-2016,
Government is pleased to declare Dr. Kennedy
Mascarenhas,
Lecturer,
Department
of
Prosthodontics and Crown Bridge, Goa Dental
College and Hospital as having completed
satisfactorily his probation period of one year from
28-09-2015 to 27-09-2016 and also to confirm him in
the said post of Lecturer in the Department of
Prosthodontics and Crown Bridge, with effect
from the date of his completion of probation
period.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Smita Hede, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 4th January, 2016.
________
Certificate
No. 4/10/2002-II/PHD/Vol. I/75
Read: Government Order No. 4/10/2002-II/PHD/
/Vol. I dated 18-11-2016.
Certified that the character and antecedents
of Dr. Gauresh Shantaram Vargaonkar, Lecturer in
Orthopedic Surgery in Goa Medical College and
Hospital, Bambolim appointed vide in the above
referred Order has been verified by the Addl.
District Magistrate, North Goa District, Panaji-Goa
and nothing adverse has come to the notice of the
Government.
Smita Hede, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 9th January, 2016.
________
Certificate
No. 4/3/2008-II/PHD/83
Read: Government Order No. 4/3/2008-II/PHDI
dated 01-11-2016.
Certified that the character and antecedents of
Dr. Sanat Ramchandra Bhatkar, Assistant Professor
of Neurology in Goa Medical College and Hospital,
Bambolim appointed vide above referred order has
been verified by the Addl. District Magistrate,
North Goa District, Panaji-Goa and nothing adverse
has come to the notice of the Government.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health).
Porvorim, 10th January, 2016.
Certificate
No. 4/7/2013-II/PHD/84
Read: Government Order No. 4/7/2013-II/PHDI
dated 26-10-2016.
Certified that the character and antecedents of
Dr. Urminda Jacqueline Wanda Viegas, Senior
Medical Officer for Anti Retroviral Therapy Centre
in Goa Medical College and Hospital, Bambolim
appointed vide above referred order has been
verified by the Addl. District Magistrate, South Goa
District, Margao-Goa and nothing adverse has come
to the notice of the Government.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health).
Porvorim, 10th January, 2016.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Science, Technology &
Environment
__
Order
No. 7/4/98/STE/DIR/Part I/386
In pursuance of the sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the
Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000,
the Government of Goa is pleased to direct
the “authority” specified in the Government
Notification No. 7/4/98/STE/DIR/Part I/922 dated
04-12-2007, published in the Official Gazette, Series
II No. 37 dated 13-12-2007, Notification No. 7/4/98/
/STE/DIR/Part I/1545 dated 15-01-2010 and
Notification No. 7/4/98/STE/DIR/Part I/104 dated
23-04-2015, to permit the use of loudspeakers or
public address system during night hours (between
10.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight) during the year 2017,
on the days specified in the Schedule hereto,
throughout the State of Goa.
“Terms and conditions for issue of permission.
1. The permission shall be granted only on a
case-to-case basis, in response to a specific
application made by the concerned Village
Panchayat, Municipal Corporation/Municipal
Council or an individual.
2. The provisions of the Noise Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 shall be
strictly complied with.
3. The ‘authority’ concerned shall monitor the
noise levels during the permitted festive
occasion and take prompt remedial action in
the event of any violation of the same and of
above conditions.”
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 42
19TH JANUARY, 2017
864
SCHEDULE
Sr.
Cultural/Religious
Date
No.
Festive occasion
1. Carnival (last day
28th February, 2017
of Carnival)
2. Holi
12th March, 2017
3. Easter Eve
26th March, 2017
4. Ganesh Chaturthi
26th August, 2017
(2nd day of idol
immersion)
5. Ganesh Chaturthi
29th August, 2017
(5th day of idol
immersion)
6. Anant Chaturdashi
05th September, 2017
7. Navaratri (1st day
21st September, 2017
of Navaratri)
8. Navaratri (last day
29th September, 2017
of Navaratri)
9. Kojagiri Poornima
05th October, 2017
10. Diwali Eve
17th October, 2017
11. Diwali
18th October, 2017
12. Tripurari/Kartiki Pornima 03rd November, 2017
13. Christmas Eve
24th December, 2017
14. Christmas
25th December, 2017
15. New Year’s Eve
31st December, 2017
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shri Agnelo A. J. Fernandes, Director & ex officio
Joint Secretary (Environment).
Saligao, 11th January, 2017.
Department of Women & Child Development
Directorate of Women & Child Development
__
Notification
No. 2-103(69)2016/DWCD/8550
Read: Notification No. 2-103(69)-2014/DWCD/
/10524 dated 09-12-2014.
Consequent to the resignation dated 1-12-2016
conveyed by Mr. Francis Braganza, Chairperson,
Child Welfare Committee, North Goa District, Apna
Ghar, Merces Goa, constituted vide above referred
notification, the Government of Goa is pleased to
appoint the below mentioned person next on the
waiting list as the Chairperson of the Child Welfare
Committee, North Goa District in place of
Mr. Francis Braganza with effect from 01-01-2017.
Sr.
Name
Address
Designation
No.
1. Smt. Amruta Abhay H. No. 303,
Chairperson
Kamat
Ganeshkrupa,
Juwarwada
Tivre, Marcela,
Goa
All other terms and conditions of the Notification
dated 09-12-2014 remains the same.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shilpa Shinde IAS, Director (W&CD).
Panaji, 13th January, 2017.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 20.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–309/350–1/2017.