Panaji, 11th April, 2019 (Chaitra 21,1941)

SERIES II No. 2

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Education

Order

No. 1-1-(19)-2003/SE/22

Whereas, Smt. Pushpa S. Pawaskar alias R. S.

Bandodkar, Principal, Dr. T. B. Cunha Government

Higher Secondary Schools, Campal-Panaji under the

Directorate of Education has changed her name to

“Rashmi Subhash Bandodker” by execution of deed

changing name/surname (under Registration

No. 1064/18) on 27-10-2018 before Shri Govind U.

Bhobe, Advocate & Notary, Panaji-Goa, State of Goa

(India) V. No. A-1559/2018 and publication of the

said changed name in the Official Gazette, Series

III No. 31 dated 01-11-2018 and also in the local

newspaper namely ‘Herald’ dated 29-11-2018 in

accordance with the procedure of change of name

by Government Employee as laid down in O.M.

No. 19016/1/87-Estt(A) dated 12-03-1987 of

Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public

Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel &

Training, New Delhi.

And whereas, the said Smt. Pushpa S. Pawaskar

alias R. S. Bandodkar vide letter dated 26-11-2018

has further requested to enter her changed name

i.e. “Rashmi Subhash Bandodker” in her service

records.

Now therefore, sanction of the Government is

hereby conveyed to change the name of “Smt.

Pushpa S. Pawaskar alias R. S. Bandodkar” to

“Rashmi Subhash Bandodker” in her service

records.

This issues with the approval of the Government

vide U. O. No. 10520/F dated 24-12-2018.

This supersedes Order No. 1-1-(19)-2003/SE/03

dated 11-01-2019.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Nagaraj G. Honnekeri , Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Education).

Porvorim, 12th March, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Environment

Order

No. 1-25-2010/STE-DIR/02

In pursuance of Section 5 of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as

“the said Act”), the following Officer is hereby

appointed Public Information Officer (PIO) for

Department of Environment to deal with the

applications received from the public under the

said Act.

Officer on Special Duty

—

Public Information

(Department of Environ-

Officer.

ment)

The Director (Environment) will be the First

Appellate Authority (FAA) under the said Act,

against the decision as far as Department of

Environment is concerned.

Sanjeev Joglekar, I/c Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary.

Porvorim, 2nd April, 2019.

Note:-

There are four Extraordinary issues to the

Official Gazette, Series II No. 1 dated 04-04-2019

as follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 04-04-2019 from pages

13 to 14 regarding Notifications from

Department of Finance.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 08-04-2019

from pages 15 to 28 regarding Notifications

from Department of Elections.

(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 09-04-2019

from pages 29 to 30 regarding Notification

from Department of Elections.

(4) Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 10-04-2019

from pages 31 to 36 regarding Order from

Department of Home.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 2

11TH APRIL, 2019

Department of General Administration

Order

No. 35/4/2005/GAD-III/1009

Read:- (1) Order No. 35/4/2005-GAD/III/372 dated 10-03-2017.

(2) Order No. 19/15/2009-GAD-III dated 05-03-2019.

In continuation to the Order read in preamble (1), the following Officers in the Secretariat are designated

as Public Information Officer (PIO), Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) and First Appellate

Authority (FAA) in respect of the Central Registry, in the Secretariat as required under Section 5 of the

Right to Information Act, 2005:-

Designation of the Officer

For which Department/

appointed as FAA

appointed as PIO

appointed as APIO

Section

Additional/Joint

Section Officer,

Sr. Assistant, Central

Central

Secretary (GA)

Central Registry

Registry/Assistant,

Registry/Record

Record Room

Room/Visitors desk.

Manuel Barreto, Under Secretary (GA-I).

Porvorim, 3rd April, 2019.

________

Notification

No. 19/1/2019-GAD-III/680

Read: Notification No. 19/2/85-GA&C dated

07-06-1985.

In order to streamline the entry of Visitors/

/General Public into the Secretariat, Porvorim

premises, it has been decided that the visitors

timings and cash transactions timings in the

Secretariat shall be as under:-

I) Visitor’s timings:- 10.00 a.m. to

1.00 p.m.

2.00 p.m. to

5.00 p.m.

II) Cash transactions:- 10.00 a.m. to

1.00 p.m.

2.00 p.m. to

4.00 p.m.

The above contents have been brought to the

notice of the public for information and compliance.

Manuel Barreto, Under Secretary (GA).

Porvorim, 27th March, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

Notification

No. 28/2/2019-LAB/256

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

15-03-2019 in reference No. IT/70/89 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.

A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 5th April, 2019.

______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/70/89

Shri Chandrakant B. Arondekar,

Volpem, Post Vironda,

Pernem, Goa.

…

Workman/Party I

V/s

The Personnel Officer,

M/s. Kadamba Transport

Corpn. Ltd.,

Panaji, Goa.

…

Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Shri K. V. Nadkarny.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv.

Shri Amit Palekar.

Monday to

Friday

except on

Holidays.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 2

11TH APRIL, 2019

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 15th day of the month

of March of the year 2019)

By order dated 26-9-1989, bearing No. 28/33/89-

-LAB, the Government of Goa in exercise of powers

conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act), has referred

the following dispute to the Tribunal for

adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management

of M/s. Kadamba Transport Corporation,

Panaji, in terminating the services of Shri

Chandrakant B. Arondekar, Conductor, with

effect from 2-11-1989 is legal and justified.

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/70/89 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 2 and

Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 3.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the

Party I was employed as a Conductor with Party II

and was posted on different buses and various

routes in Goa and outside and has served the

employer faithfully. It is also claimed that on

28-3-1987 while working on the bus bearing No.

GDX-171 plying on Hubli-Margao route and was in

the process of issuing tickets to the passengers,

one of the passengers told him that his fare would

be paid by the passenger seated on the back seat

and when he approached them, a discussion

ensued between them on the amount of fare and

during the said discussion, the Line checking staff

of Party II stopped the bus and started checking

the passengers, at which time the workman had a

few tickets in his hand which he wanted to issue

to the passengers which fact was explained to the

Assistant Traffic Inspector and the Ticket Inspector

but they did not listen and issued him a default

notice. The workman thereafter charged for

committing misconduct and was directed to give

written explanation, which he gave. A

departmental enquiry was held and the Enquiry

Officer submitted his report. A show cause notice

was issued wherein it was stated that the charges

made against him are proved and he was required

to show cause why he should not be dismissed

from service. The workman filed the reply but it

was not considered before passing of the dismissal

order dated 2-11-1988. The action on the part of

Party II for dismissing him is illegal and unjustified.

Hence, the dispute.

4. In the Written statement, the Party II has

claimed that the Party I workman was working as

a Conductor on the bus bearing No. GDX-171 and

on 28-3-1987 during the inspection, it was noticed

that he had collected fare from some passengers

but did not issue tickets to them and also that he

neither collected fare nor issued tickets to some of

the passengers travelling in the bus. He was

therefore issued a show cause notice and charge

sheet but his explanation was not found

satisfactory. A departmental enquiry was initiated

and after completion of the enquiry, terminated his

services. The action of the Party II is legal and

justified and within the four corners of principle of

natural justice and as per the provisions of Certified

Standing orders of the corporation.

5. Issues were framed at Exh. 4 on 16-05-1990

and they were reframed on 13-3-2000 at Exh. 14 as

follows:

(1) Whether the Party I proves that the domestic

enquiry held against him is not legal, fair

and proper?

(2) Whether the charges of misconduct levelled

against the Party I are proved to the

satisfaction of the Tribunal by acceptable

evidence?

(3) Whether the Party I proves that the action

of the Party II in terminating his services

with effect from 2-11-88 is illegal and

unjustified?

(4) Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?

(5) What Award?

6. It is a matter of record that an additional issue

was framed on 17-8-2015 at Exb. 30. It is as follows:

(2A) Whether the Party I proves that the

punishment of dismissal awarded to him is

disproportionate as well as discriminatory

in nature?

7. Admittedly, the preliminary issues No. 1 and

2 were answered vide Order dated 18-03-2013 at

Exh. 22 and held that domestic enquiry conducted

against the Party I workman, Shri Chandrakant B.

Arondekar is fair and proper. It is further held that

the Party I is guilty of the charges levelled against

him in the charge sheet dated 28-4-1987.

8. It is a matter of record that the Party I filed an

application for amendment on 20-3-2014 inter-alia

claiming that the punishment of dismissal awarded

to him is disproportionate as well as discriminatory

in nature as number of conductors who were issued

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 2

11TH APRIL, 2019

several default notices, chargesheets for various

irregularities have been let off with minor

punishments like monetary fines or stoppage of

increments and that even Sr. Executives of the

Corporation involved in the financial irregularities

and corrupt practices who were found guilty of

the allegations made against them, were also let

off. One Shri Nitin Gude was issued 31 default

notices and thereafter an enquiry was conducted

and after the enquiry, he was dismissed from the

services, however he was taken back with minor

punishment ignoring the fact that there were seven

more default notices besides 31 default notices

issued to him and also charge sheets for each

default, which were all commuted to fine and thus

leniency was shown to said conductor even though

he was a habitual offender and his service records

were bad, while the Party I workman was not given

any opportunity and was discriminated in the

matter of punishment meted out to him and

therefore, he deserves a lenient punishment.

9. The Party I, Shri Chandrakant Arondekar

examined himself and produced on record a copy

of suspension order dated 24-12-1997 at Exh. 32, a

copy of suspension order dated 8-4-2009 at Exh. 33,

a copy of memorandum dated 2-2-1998 along with

annexure at Exh. 34 colly, copies of memorandum

dated 12-5-2009 along with annexure I, II and III at

Exh. 35, copies of service records, orders, letters

etc. of conductor Nitin Gude at Exh. 36 colly, copies

of service records, orders, letters etc. of conductor

Sanjay Dessai at Exh. 37 colly, copies of service

records, orders, letters etc. of conductor Mahadev

Dessai at Exh. 38 colly and copies of service records,

orders, letters etc. of conductor Prakash L. Gaonkar

at Exh. 39 colly. On the other hand, Party II examined

Shri Vidhyadhar Harmalkar and produced on record

a copy of approved Standing Orders at Exh. 43

colly and a copy of order dated 10-10-1985 at

Exh. 44 and closed its case.

10. Heard arguments.

11. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the arguments advanced.

My findings to the above issues are as follows:

Issue No. 2A

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 3

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 4

…

As per final order.

Issue No. 5

…

As per final order.

REASONS

Issue No. 2A:

12. Shri K. V. Nadkarny for Party I has submitted

that the punishment of dismissal from services as

awarded to Party I workman is disproportionate as

well as discriminatory in nature as number of

conductors even though their service records were

very poor have been retained by letting off with

minor punishment like fines and stoppage of

increments, although they have been habitual

offenders and have committed repeated

misconducts during the service period, however,

the Party I workman has been discriminated and

punished with severe and harsh punishment of

dismissal, even though the inspection carried out

was faulty. He further submitted that the Party II

Corporation has been very liberal and showed

undue favouratism in the matter of punishment to

one conductor by name Nitin Gude who continued

to be employed, although he was issued 31 default

notices but was let off without issuing charge

sheets or ordering enquiry against him by the

Senior Officers who were themselves found guilty

of irregularities charged against them. He further

submitted that there are some other conductors

who have also been shown favouratism by the

management in the similar manner who have been

let off with minor punishment, even though they

have been proved to be habitual offenders. Shri

Nadkarny has further submitted that termination

is illegal if it is based on discrimination or when

the punishment is disproportionate and in support

thereof, he relied upon the cases of (i) Tata

Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. Jitendra

PD. Singh and Another, (2001) 10 SCC 530; (ii) S.

Ganapathy vs. Chairman Cum Managing Director,

(2017) 7 MLJ 390; and (iii) Shri Ramdas Borkar

vs. M/s. Goa Shipyard Ltd. and Another, in W.P.

No. 6/2004 dated 5-3-2013.

13. Per Contra, Adv. Shri Amit Palekar for

Party II has submitted that the termination of the

Party I workman is based on Certified Standing

Orders of the Corporation. The misconduct of

Party I is very grave and serious. The charges

leveled against the Party I workman have been

proved. Relying upon the case of V. Ramana vs.

A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors, in Appeal (Civil) No. 9904 of

2003 dated 05-09-2005, he submitted that the Apex

Court has categorically held that it is the

responsibility of the conductors to collect correct

fare charges from the passengers and deposit the

same with the Corporation. They act in fiduciary

capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct

if they do not collect any fare or the correct amount

of fare. A conductor holds a post of trust. A person

guilty of breach of trust should be imposed

punishment of removal from service. He also

submitted that the Party I has committed a serious

misconduct which called for major penalty. The

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 2

11TH APRIL, 2019

penalty imposed commensurate with the gravity

of misconduct and therefore there is no scope for

interference in the punishment as the breach of

direction issued by the employer led to loss of

revenue which is legitimately due to the

Corporation.

14. The Party I has examined himself and

produced on record the suspension order issued to

Shri S. V. Naik, Dy. General Manager (Tech.) and

Shri Pramod Gaonkar, Works Manager at Exh. 32,

suspension order issued to Shri V. V. S. Kunkolekar,

Dy. General Manager (Tech.) and Shri Pramod A.

Gaonkar, Works Manager at Exh. 33, and

Memorandum dated 2-2-1998 issued to Shri Pramod

Gaonkar with annexure at Exh. 34 colly. It is

however not explained the relevancy of the said

documents to the present case nor it has been

proved as to how the Party I workman was

discriminated by the management. It is seen from

the records that the Party I had filed an application

for amendment which came to be incorporated in

the claim statement on 20-3-2014 much after issue

No. 1 and 2 were answered against the Party I

workman. It is however not proved how the

suspension orders and the memorandum issued to

the management staff have anything to do with

the punishment awarded to Party I workman.

15. The Party I has also produced on record

copies of service records, orders, letters, etc. of

conductor Shri Nitin Gude at Exh. 36 colly,

conductor Shri Sanjay Desai at 37 colly, conductor

Shri Mahadev Desai at Exh. 38 colly, and Shri

Prakash L. Gaonkar at Exh. 39 colly., however none

of the service records produced by Party I show

that there is any discrimination vis-a-vis the Party

I workman as far as the punishment is concerned

as those are the individual cases which have been

dealt with separately by Party II management. It is

nowhere the case of Party I workman that he is the

only conductor who have been treated differently

or that he is innocent and is not involved in the

alleged offence. The Party I Shri Chandrakant in

the cross examination has admitted that there were

more than 20 conductors who have been dismissed

from service for similar default as that of his. The

Party I cannot seek parity in the case of default

which has been proved against him on the ground

that there has not been any similar action against

other workman nor he has shown that the action

taken against him for dismissal of service is

discriminatory or disproportionate. Even, if there is

inaction or lenient action taken by the management

against other co-workmen, it will not amount to

discrimination on the part of Party II as it has not

been proved that his case is similar to that of Nitin

Gude, Sanjay Desai, Mahadev Desai or Prakash

Gaonkar or that it is pertaining to the same incident

wherein he has been treated differently. The

documents produced by him therefore do not

support his act of retaining money of the

Corporation by not issuing tickets.

16. It is well settled in the case of V. Ramana,

supra that a person guilty of breach of trust should

be imposed punishment of removal from service.

The Apex Court has further observed that the

Courts 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 and would not

go into the correctness of the choice made by the

administrator open to him and the Court should

not substitute its decision to that of the

administrator. The scope of judicial review is

limited to the deficiency in decision-making process

and not the decision. To put differently unless the

punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority

or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience

of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for

interference. Similarly, in the case of Dattatraya

Mahadev Deshmukh vs. Maharastra State Road

Transport Corp. & anr., 2004 (3) Bom CR 343, the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that

“………..the conductor of a public Transport

Corporation is entrusted with a vital function

relating to the issuance of tickets and the collection

of fares. He is obliged to comply with the

administrative direction, which are issued by the

Corporation to him scrupulously. A breach of the

direction issued by the employer is liable to lead

to a loss of revenue which is legitimately due and

owing to the Corporation.

17. In the instant case, the preliminary issues

No. 1 and 2 were answered in the affirmative and

it was held that the domestic enquiry conducted

against the workman, Shri Chandrakant Arondekar

is fair and proper and that he was guilty of the

charges leveled against him in the charge sheet

dated 28-4-1987. There is no dispute that the

Party I was issued a default notice dated 28-3-1987

stating that the Line checking staff checked the

bus bearing No. GDX-171 plying on Hubli-Margao

route on which he was the conductor and found

that 10 passengers were travelling without

tickets and the Party I conductor collected fare of

Rs. 22/- from only six passengers but did not issue

them tickets and remaining four did not pay

any fare, although he was supposed to collect

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 2

11TH APRIL, 2019

Rs. 74/- from them and that the Party I has

committed the said misconduct. Needless to

mention, a conductor holds a post of trust and the

person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed

punishment of removal of service as held in the

case of V. Ramana, supra. There is no discrimination

in awarding punishment to Party I workman nor

the citations relied above by Party I are applicable

to the facts of the case.

18. The case of Tata Locomotive and

Engineering Ltd. supra is clearly distinguishable

as it was the case of drunkenness, fighting or

riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour

involving as many as three workmen on almost

identical charges in which one was punished with

only one month suspension and the other was

dismissed from service and the Apex Court has

held that it would be the denial of justice to the

appellant workman if he alone is singled out for

punishment by way of dismissal of service, unlike

in the present case where the Party I was involved

in serious offence of embezzlement of the property

of the Corporation. The reliance placed on the case

of S. Ganapathy, supra is also not applicable as it

turned on its own facts. Similarly, in the case of

Shri Ramdas Borkar, supra the workers who were

working in the rival union and involved in the

same incident of assault were inflicted lenient

punishment of warning, whereas the Petitioner was

given the punishment of termination of service and

it was held that the punishment was shockingly

disproportionate to the misconduct attributed to

the Petitioner, unlike in the present case. It is

therefore, the submission of Shri Nadkarny that

the punishment of dismissal from services as

awarded to the party I workman is disproportionate

as well as discriminatory in nature cannot be

accepted having any merits. Hence, the above issue

is answered in the negative.

Issues No. 3, 4, and 5:

19. Shri K. V. Nadkarny for Party I has also

submitted that the Party II has terminated the

services without considering the past records as

required in terms of certified standing orders of

the Corporation and is not only illegal but

unjustified. He also submitted that while awarding

punishment to the delinquent workman, the

Disciplinary Authority has failed to consider clean

and unblemished record of the workman, which

will operate as a mitigating factor against the

dismissal of the workman from service and in

support thereof, he relied upon the case of Indian

Seamless Metal Tubes Limited (Tubes Works),

Ahmednagar vs. Kailash Nampelli Ushakoyal &

Anr., 2014 III CLR 47. He therefore submitted that

the order of dismissal be set aside and the relief

claimed by the Party I workman be granted.

20. Admittedly, the Party I workman worked for

about four years before his termination of services.

There cannot be any dispute that the employer is

obliged to consider his past records since a clean

and unblemished record operates as a mitigating

factor to reduce seriousness and gravity of

misconduct proved against the workman. Clause

29 (III) of the Certified Standing Orders of the

Corporation at Exh. 43 colly stipulates that in

awarding punishment under the standing orders,

the Manager shall take into account the gravity of

misconduct, previous records if any, of the workman

and any other extenuating or aggravating

circumstances that may exists. In the case of Indian

Seamless Metal Tubes Limited (Tubes Works),

Ahmednagar, supra the workman refused to

perform the work, sat idle for the entire shift and

was found speaking in an arrogant manner with

the superior. The Hon’ble High Court observed that

the workman had put in eight years of service and

had not indulged in any act of misconduct

previously and his past service record was clean

and unblemished, which the Hon’ble High Court

held is a mitigating factor which would result in

reducing the seriousness and gravity of misconduct

proved against him, unlike in the present case

where the offence was serious in nature and it

would not operate as an mitigating factor to reduce

the gravity of the misconduct proved against him,

although nothing has been brought on record that

the past records of the Party I workman was clean

and unblemished.

21. The Party I workman has committed a serious

offence as it was responsibility of the conductor to

collect the correct fare from the passengers and

deposit the same with the Corporation and as such

the Corporation cannot be burdened to pay back

wages to the Party I workman. It is therefore not

a fit case to pay any back wages to the Party I

workman as his action or inaction resulted in

financial loss to the Corporation. The order of

dismissal therefore cannot be set aside. Be that as

it may, it is an admitted fact that the Party I

workman has superannuated in July, 2018.

Therefore, having regard to the judgment passed

by the Apex Court in the case of Karnataka State

Road Transport Corporation vs. B. S. Hullikatti,

2001 (1) SCR 487 which is a similar case like that

of present one, where retiral benefits were

awarded, so also considering that the above case

is pending for last 20 years and that the Disciplinary

authority had not considered the previous records

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 2

11TH APRIL, 2019

of the workman, if any, it would be proper and in

the interest of justice that the Party II shall pay the

retiral benefits to the Party I workman or a lumpsum

amount of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only),

whichever is more. Hence the above issues are

answered accordingly.

22. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The present reference stands partly allowed.

(ii) The Party II is directed to pay the retiral

benefits to the Party I workman, Shri

Chandrakant Arondekar or a lumpsum

amount of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand

only) whichever is more, within 60 days of

the publication of the Award, failing which

the Party II shall pay an interest @ 9% per

annum.

(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

———uuu———

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

Notification

No. 12/29/2013/LD(Estt.)/727

The following Notification No. P.0703/2019 dated

25-02-2019 which has been issued by the Registrar

(Admn.), High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji, is

hereby published for general information of the

public.

Amir Parab, Under Secretary (Establishment).

Porvorim, 5th April, 2019.

____

Notification of The High Court of

Judicature at Bombay

No. P. 0703/2019— In exercise of the powers

conferred under Section 5(1) and (2) of the Right

to Information Act, 2005 read with Rule 15 of the

Bombay High Court, Right to Information (Revised)

Rules, 2009 and in partial modification of the

Notification dated 1 February, 2016, the Hon’ble

the Chief Justice is pleased to designate Shri K. A.

Bagi, Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay at

Goa, Panaji as First Appellate Authority in place

of Shri P. M. Shinde, the then First Appellate

Authority, High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji.

High Court of Bombay

Surendra P. Tavade,

at Goa, Panaji

Registrar General.

Date: February, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel

Order

No. 6/3/2002-PER(Vol.I)/980

Read: Order No. 6/3/2002-PER(Vol.I) dated

26-02-2019.

Approval of the Competent Authority is accorded

to draw the salary of below mentioned officers

promoted on ad hoc basis to Senior Scale of Goa Civil

Service vide Order read in preamble, from the date

of their joining, acceptance of the order of promotion

in terms of F. R. 17:

Sr.

Name of the officer

Salary drawn against

No.

the post of

1. Smt. Neetal P. Amonkar

Director, DSLR.

2. Shri Arvind B. Khutkar

Director of Public

Grievances.

3. Shri Pipi T. Murgaonkar Director of Social

Welfare.

4. Shri Sagun R. Velip

Leave & Training

Reserve.

5. Ms. Sushma D. Kamat

Director of NRI

Affairs.

6. Ms. Maria Seomara

Joint Secretary

D’Souza

(ARD).

7. Shri Gourish J.

Additional Director

Shankhwalkar

of Vigilance-II.

8. Shri Mahadev J.

Superintendent of

Araundekar

Central Jail, Colvale.

9. Shri Harish N.

Leave & Training

Adconkar

Reserve.

10. Smt. Sarita Sadashiv

Additional Commissio-

Marathe alias Gadgil

ner of Commercial

Taxes-I.

11. Smt. Sangeeta S. Rawool

Director (Admn.),

alias Smt. Sangeeta

Higher Education.

Porob

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 2

11TH APRIL, 2019

This issues with the concurrence of Finance

(R&C) Department vide their U.O. No. 5082 dated

26-03-2019.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 27th March, 2019.

________

Order

No. 6/9/2009-PER/Part-IV/1059

Shri Narayan Gad, Director (Admn.), Directorate

of Education shall hold the charge of the post of

Director, Directorate of Information & Publicity in

addition to his duties in public interest, with

immediate effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 4th April, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

Certificate

No. 44/25/2017-I/PHD/875

Read: Government Order No. 44/25/2017-I/PHD/

/560 dated 21-2-2019.

Certified that the character and antecedents of

Dr. Sidhant Shripad Shet, Medical Officer (Group ‘A’

Gazetted) under Directorate of Health Services has

been verified by the District Magistrate, South Goa,

Margao vide letter No. 36/01/2019/MAG/239/3194

dated 08-3-2019 and it is revealed that there is

nothing adverse reported against him.

Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 28th March, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Revenue

Addendum

No. 1/1/17/2018-RD/769

Read: Notification No. 1/1/17/2018-RD/1316

dated 20-07-2018.

Imagine Panaji Smart City Development Ltd.

(IPSCDL) is entrusted with the work of

implementation of “Smart City” projects in Panaji.

The Government has decided that all the

developmental works undertaken by the IPSCDL

in which co-ordination between various

Government Departments is required keeping in

the mind public safety and convenience, has to be

referred to the District Level Road Digging

Co-ordination Committee. The District Level Road

Digging Co-ordination Committee is required to

decide on IPSCDL proposals in not more than 7

days.

If the proposals of IPSCDL are not disposed by

the District Level Road Digging Co-ordination

Committee within the period of 7 days, the sanction

of District Level Road Digging Co-ordination

Committee shall be deemed to have been granted.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Sudin A. Natu, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).

Porvorim, 3rd April, 2019.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 8.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—12/160–4/2019.