Note: There are two Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 23 dated 04-09-2025 as follows:-

1. Extraordinary dated 6-9-2025 from pages 747 to 748 regarding Notifications from Goa Legislature Secretariat.

2. Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 10-9-2025 from pages 749 to 752 regarding Orders from Goa State Election Commission.

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Agriculture

Directorate of Agriculture

Order

On recommendation of the Local Departmental Promotion Committee, the following Agriculture

Officers, Group ‘B’ Gazetted of this Directorate are hereby promoted to the post of Assistant Director of

Agriculture/Scientist (Agronomy/Horticulture/Plant Protection), Group ‘A’ Gazetted on officiating basis for

a period of not more than one year and in the public interest in the pay matrix at Level-10 of the 7^th Pay

Commission with immediate effect until further orders.

On promotion (officiating basis) they are posted as shown below:

Sr.

No.

Name of the Officer

Present posting

Posted as

Smt. Vaibhavi V.

Desai

Assistant Director of Agriculture

(Crops), Crops & PP Section, Head

Quarter

Retained

as Assistant

Director

Agriculture

(Crops),

Crops

Section, Head Quarter.

Shri. Saieesh Gandhi

As a Nodal Officer/In charge for

Vidhya Samiksha Kendra on working

arrangement in the O/o Director, State

Council of Educational Research

Assistant

Director

Agriculture

(Extension), Extension & IT Section,

Head Quarter by relieving Smt. Vismita

Marathe from her additional charge.

Shri. Adolfo Rajesh

D’Costa

Zonal Agriculture Officer, Zonal

Agriculture Office, Margao, Goa

Assistant

Director

Agriculture,

District

Agriculture

Office,

South,

Margao against the vacant post under the

B. H. 2401—Crop Husbandry, 00, 001—

Direction

Administration,

03—

Subordinate & Expert Staff, 01—

Salaries.

Shri. Adolfo Rajesh D’Costa shall continue to hold the charge of Zonal Agriculture Officer, Zonal

Agriculture Office, Margao-Goa in addition to his own duties until further order.

No. 2/9/95-AGR/2025-26/Part(II)/975

Date : 01-Sep-2025

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

753

Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2024-2026

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Panaji, 11th September, 2025 (Bhadra 20, 1947)

SERIES II No. 24

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

The officiating promotion will not bestow on the above Officers any claim for regular promotion and

the service rendered on officiating basis in the grade will not count for the purpose of seniority in that grade

for eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade.

This is issued with approval of Government vide Entry No. 2821/F dated 25/08/2025.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Sandeep B. Fol Dessai, Director of Agriculture & ex-officio Jt. Secretary.

Tonca, Caranzalem.

__________

Order

On recommendation of the Local Departmental Promotion Committee, the following Assistant

Agriculture Officers, Group ‘B’ Gazetted of this Directorate are hereby promoted to the post of Agriculture

Officers on officiating basis for a period of not more than one year and in the public interest in the pay

matrix at Level-7 of the 7^th Pay Commission with immediate effect until further orders.

On promotion (officiating basis) they are posted as shown below:

Sr.

No.

Name of the Officer

Present posting

Posted as

Kum. Santoshi B.

Sawant Dessai

Assistant Agriculture Officer,

Zonal Agriculture Office,

Quepem

Agriculture Officer, District Agriculture

Office (South), Margao, against the vacant

post under the BH: 2401—Crop Husbandry,

00,

105—Manures

Fertilizer,

02—

Manures & Fertilizer, 01—Salaries.

Shri Deepak G. Gadekar

Assistant Agriculture Officer,

Extension Section,

Head Quarter

Agriculture Officer (IT), Extension & IT

Section, Head Quarter in place of Shri.

Saieesh Gandhi, Agriculture Officer being

promoted to the post of Assistant Director of

Agriculture on officiating basis

Shri Sharvanand R.

Sarvankar

Assistant Agriculture Officer,

Zonal Agriculture Office,

Canacona

Agriculture Officer, District Agriculture

Office (North), Head Quarter, against the

vacant post under the BH: 2402—Soil &

Water Conservation, 00, 001—Direction &

Administration, 01—Establishment, 01—

Salaries.

Kum. Jovita Rosada

Siqueira

Assistant Agriculture Officer,

Zonal Agriculture Office,

Quepem

Agriculture Officer, District Agriculture

Office (South), Margao, against the vacant

post under the BH: 2401—Crop Husbandry,

00,

105—Manures

Fertilizer,

02—

Manures & Fertilizer, 01—Salaries.

Shri. Mayuresh A. Bhat

NHM/WDC Section, Head

Quarter

Agriculture Officer (Farm), Head Quarter,

against the vacant post under the BH: 2401

—Crop Husbandry, 00, 119—Horticulture &

Vegetable

Crops,

02—Vegetable,

01—

Salaries.

Shri Sharvanand R. Sarvankar shall continue to hold the charge of Assistant Agriculture Officer,

Zonal Agriculture Office, Canacona-Goa in addition to his own duties until further order.

Kum. Jovita Rosada Siqueira shall continue to hold the charge of Assistant Agriculture Officer,

Zonal Agriculture Office, Quepem-Goa in addition to her own duties until further order.

No. 2/9/95-AGR/2025-26/Part(II)/976

Date : 01-Sep-2025

754

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

Shri. Mayuresh A. Bhat shall continue to hold the charge of Assistant Agriculture Officer,

NHM/WDC Section, Head Quarter in addition to his own duties until further order.

The officiating promotion will not bestow on the above Officers any claim for regular promotion and

the service rendered on officiating basis in the grade will not count for the purpose of seniority in that grade

for eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade.

This is issued with approval of Government vide Entry No. 2821/F dated 25/08/2025.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Sandeep B. Fol Dessai, Director of Agriculture & ex officio Jt. Secretary.

Tonca, Caranzalem.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Archives

Notification

Read: 1. Order No. 4/1/83/Man‘B’-831 dated 27th August, 2024.

2. Addendum No. 4/1/83/2023/Man‘B’-986 dated 27^th September, 2024.

In addition to the Orders mentioned above, sanction of Government is hereby accorded for extension of

the tenure of the Committee of Experts for a period of one year w. e. f. 27/08/2025 to 26/08/2026.

This order is issued with the approval of the Government vide U. O. No. 37 dated 25/08/2025.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Arvind Khutkar, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Archives).

Panaji.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Notification

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,

“Peterpaul Enclave Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited", Near Dabolim Railway Station,

Alto Dabolim, Goa is registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2024250129.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

"Peterpaul Enclave Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Near Dabolim Railway

Station, Alto Dabolim, Goa has been registered on 13/01/2025 and its bears registration Code symbol No.

RCSSZ2024250129 and its classified as Co-operative Housing Society under sub-classification No. 7-(d)-

Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

4/1/83/2023/Man'B'-968

Date : 03-Sep-2025

5-2083-2024/ARSZ/HSG/2827

Date : 13-Jan-2025

755

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

Notification

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,

“Jayden Residency Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Dramapur, Salcete-Goa is registered

under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2024250133.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

“Jayden Residency Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Dramapur, Salcete-Goa has been

registered on 04/02/2025 and its bears registration code symbol No. RCSSZ2024250133 and its classified as

Co-operative Housing Society under sub-classification No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing Maintenance

Society in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

__________

Notification

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,

“Saldanha Rosa Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Ltd.”, Saldanha Rosa, Utorda, Salcete-Goa is

registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2025260152.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

“Saldanha Rosa Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Ltd.”, Saldanha Rosa, Utorda, Salcete-Goa

has been registered on 06/05/2025 and its bears registration code symbol No. RCSSZ2025260152 and its

classified as Co-operative Housing Society under sub-classification No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing

Maintenance Society in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

_________

Notification

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,

“Wincons Premiun Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Bamado, Chinchinim, Salcete-Goa is

registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2025260154.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

“Wincons Premiun Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Bamado, Chinchinim, Salcete-Goa

has been registered on 12/05/2025 and its bears registration code symbol No. RCSSZ2025260154 and its

classified as Co-operative Housing Society under sub-classification No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing

Maintenance Society in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

5-2084-2024/ARSZ/HSG/3000

Date : 05-Feb-2025

5-2082-2025/ARSZ/HSG

Date : 06-May-2025

5-2094-2025/ARSZ/HSG/411

Date : 12-May-2025

756

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

Notification

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,

“Wincons Windjammer Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Digeband, Bandfoll, Chinchinim,

Salcete-Goa is registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2025260153.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

“Wincons Windjammer Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Digeband, Bandfoll,

Chinchinim, Salcete-Goa has been registered on 12/05/2025 and its bears registration code symbol No.

RCSSZ2025260153 and its classified as Co-operative Housing Society under sub-classification No. 7-(d)-

Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

_________

Notification

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,

“The Derajlaxmi ‘A’ Block Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Near Pandav Chapel,

Aquem Alto, Margao, Salcete-Goa is registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2025260158.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

“The Derajlaxmi ‘A’ Block Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Near Pandav Chapel,

Aquem Alto, Margao, Salcete-Goa has been registered on 16/05/2025 and its bears registration code symbol

No. RCSSZ2025260158 and its classified as Co-operative Housing Society under sub-classification No. 7-

(d)-Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

_________

Notification

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,

“The Hillside Apartments Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Opp. Jet International, St.

Joaquim Road, Borda, Margao, Salcete-Goa is registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2025260156.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

“The Hillside Apartments Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Opp. Jet International,

St. Joaquim Road, Borda, Margao, Salcete-Goa has been registered on 16/05/2025 and its bears registration

code symbol No. RCSSZ2025260156 and its classified as Co-operative Housing Society under sub-

classification No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-

operative Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

5-2093-2025/ARSZ/HSG/412

Date : 12-May-2025

5-2109-2025/ARSZ/HSG/464

Date : 16-May-2025

5-2107-2025/ARSZ/HSG/464

Date : 16-May-2025

757

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

Notification

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,

“The Derajlaxmi ‘B’ Block Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Near Pandav Chapel,

Aquem Alto, Margao, Salcete-Goa is registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2025260157.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

“The Derajlaxmi ‘B’ Block Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Near Pandav Chapel,

Aquem Alto, Margao, Salcete-Goa has been registered on 16/05/2025 and its bears registration code symbol

No. RCSSZ2025260157 and its classified as Co-operative Housing Society under sub-classification No. 7-

(d)-Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

_________

Notification

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,

“Lourenco Residency Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Comba, Margao-Goa is

registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2025260170.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

“Lourenco Residency Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Comba, Margao-Goa has

been registered on 07/08/2025 and its bears registration code symbol No. RCSSZ2025260170 and its

classified as Co-operative Housing Society under sub-classification No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing

Maintenance Society in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

_________

Notification

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,

“Vian Residency Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Marlem, Borda, Margao-Goa is registered

under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2025260171.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

“Vian Residency Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, Marlem, Borda, Margao-Goa has

been registered on 21/08/2025 and its bears registration code symbol No. RCSSZ2025260171 and its

classified as Co-operative Housing Society under sub-classification No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing

Maintenance Society in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone.

Margao.

5-2108-2025/ARSZ/HSG/465

Date : 16-May-2025

5-2086-2025/ARSZ/HSG/1222

Date : 07-Aug-2025

5-2114-2025/ARSZ/HSG/1317

Date : 21-Aug-2025

758

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

Department of Education

Directorate of Higher Education

Order

Sanction of the Government is hereby accorded for availing the services on working arrangement basis

of Mr. Ashok Mahadev Chodankar, Associate Professor, Govt. College of Arts, Science and Commerce,

Sanquelim, Goa as Deputy Director of Higher Education.

Mr. Ashok Mahadev Chodankar shall draw his salary as Associate Professor in Govt. College of Arts,

Science and Commerce, Sanquelim, Goa and his working arrangement shall be a temporary measure to cope

up with the increased workload.

The Principal of Govt. College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Sanquelim, Goa shall relieve Mr.

Ashok Mahadev Chodankar, Associate Professor with immediate effect.

This issues with the approval of the Government.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Safal Shetye, Under Secretary (Higher Education).

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Forest

Order

Government is pleased to order transfer and posting of following Officers of Goa Forest Department,

with immediate effect, in public interest:

Sr.

No.

Name of Officer and current posting

Transferred as/additional charge

Shri Paresh Parab, Assistant Conservator of

Forest, Zoo Manager, Bondla

Assistant Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry.

Shri Vishwanath Pingulkar, Assistant Conservator

of Forest

Assistant Conservator of Forest, Principal Goa

State

Forest

Training

School,

Valpoi

with

additional charge of Zoo Manager, Bondla.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Sitaram Gurudas Sawal, Under Secretary (Forest).

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Industries

Notification

Read: Government Notification No. 3/7/2024-IND/166 dated 22-07-2025, published in the Official

Gazette, Series I No. 18 dated 31-07-2025 in respect of the Project Proponent M/s. Spark

Healthline Private Limited.

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the Goa Investment Promotion

and Facilitation of Single Window Clearance Act, 2021 (Goa Act 19 of 2021), the Government of Goa

DHE/ADMN/175/WA-Dy. Director/2025/1232

Date : 14-May-2025

4/4/2024-FOR/226

Date : 05-Sep-2025

3/7/2024-IND/208

Date : 03-Sep-2025

759

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

hereby appoints a Planning, Development and Construction Committee, consisting of the following

members, for the Investment Promotion Area declared by the Government vide Notification cited above, in

respect of the Project Proponent M/s. Spark Healthline Private Limited for the purpose of setting up of a 5-

Star and 4-Star Hotel, multilevel car parking in individual buildings of the hotels with 3 levels of car

parking and landscaping illumination and approach road to the activities and facilities, in Reis Magos

Village, Bardez Taluka, North Goa:-

(i)

Chief Secretary

—

Chairperson.

(ii)

Secretary (Industries)

—

Member.

(iii)

Director, Directorate of Industries, Trade and Commerce

—

Member.

(iv)

Chief Town Planner (Planning)

—

Member.

(v)

Director, Directorate of Health Services

—

Member.

(vi)

Director of Fire and Emergency Service

—

Member.

(vii)

Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers

—

Member.

(viii)

Chief Electrical Engineer, Electricity Department

—

Member.

(ix)

Principal Chief Engineer, Public Works Department

—

Member.

(x)

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

—

Member.

(xi)

Member Secretary, Goa State Pollution Control Board

—

Member.

(xii)

Member Secretary, Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

—

Member.

(xiii)

District Collector, North Goa

—

Member.

(xiv)

District Collector, South Goa

—

Member.

(xv)

Chief Executive Officer of the Board

—

Member Secretary.

The said Committee shall exercise all the powers, such as, control or erection of building, etc. and all

other powers conferred on it by the Goa Investment Promotion and Facilitation of Single Window Clearance

Act, 2021 (Goa Act 19 of 2021).

This Notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Industries).

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Labour

Order

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the

management of M/s. Goldenglobe Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Panaji-Goa and it’s workman Shri Vasant C. Mesta in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto;

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), the Government of Goa hereby refers the said

dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under sub-section (1) of

Section 7 of the said Act.

28/40/2025-LAB/518

Date : 02-Sep-2025

760

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

SCHEDULE

(1)

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Goldenglobe Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Panaji-Goa in terminating

the services of Shri Vasant C. Mesta, Engine Driver with effect from 13/09/2024, is legal and justified?

(2)

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Amalia O.F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim.

_______

Order

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the

management of M/s. Cipla Limited, Verna Industrial Estate, Salcete-Goa and it’s workman, represented by

Bharatiya Kamgar Sena in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto;

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 (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers the said

dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under Section 7A of the

said Act.

SCHEDULE

(1)

“Whether the Bhartiya Kamgar Sena has locus standi to raise Industrial Dispute in respect of alleged

punishment of suspension of 04 days of Shri Bandu Ade, Junior Operator-Production w.e.f. 24/06/2023

to 27/06/2023, before the management of M/s Cipla Limited situated at Verna Industrial Estate, Verna,

Salcete-Goa?

(2)

If the answer to issue No. (1) is in affirmative, then whether Shri Bandu Ade, Junior Operator-

Production could be construed as Workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947?

(3)

If the answer to the above issue No. (2) is in affirmative, then whether the action of Management of

M/s Cipla Limited, Verna Industrial Estate, Salcete-Goa in imposing punishment of suspension on Shri

Bandu Ade, Junior Operator-Production, for 4 days w.e.f. 24/06/2023 to 27/06/2023, is legal and

justified?

(4)

If answer to the above issue No. (2) above is in negative, then what relief the workman is entitled?.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Amalia O.F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim.

_______

Order

Government is pleased to order the transfer and posting of the following Insurance Medical Officers in

E.S.I. Scheme, under office of Commissioner, Labour & Employment, in public interest, with immediate

effect as under:

28/42/2025-LAB/523

Date : 03-Sep-2025

24/3/87-LAB-I (Vol-I)/ESI (Part)/526

Date : 03-Sep-2025

761

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

Sr.

No.

Name of the Insurance Medical Officer

Present place of posting

Place of posting on transfer

Dr. Poornima M. Deshpande

E.S.I. Dispensary, Bicholim

E.S.I. Dispensary, Panaji

Dr. Varsha Sawant

E.S.I. Dispensary, Panaji

E.S.I. Dispensary, Corlim

Dr. Karishma Kalangutkar

E.S.I. Dispensary, Mapusa

E.S.I. Dispensary,

Bicholim

Dr. Vidhya Taleigaonkar

E.S.I. Dispensary, Corlim

E.S.I. Hospital, Margao

This order shall come into force with immediate effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Amalia O.F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim.

________

Notification

The following Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on 13/08/2025

in Case Ref. No. IT/32/2010 is hereby published as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Amalia O.F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim.

__________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Shivolkar, Hon’ble Presiding Officer)

Ref. No. IT/32/2010

Shri Chandrakant Daune (since deceased),

Legal Heirs: Smt. Minaxi C. Daune,

Daughter Ms. Diksha C. Daune,

Son, Shri Reshab C. Daune,

H. No. 880, Pandgal,

Shiroda-Goa.

…

Workman/Party I

V/s

The Chief Officer,

M/s Margao Municipal Council,

Margao-Goa.

…

Employer/Party II

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

Employer/Party II represented by Learned Advocate Shri. P. Rao along with Adv. Ms. S. Drago.

28/02/2025-LAB/Part-I/530

Date : 04-Sep-2025

762

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 13^thday of the month of August of the year 2025)

By order dated 19/11/2010 bearing No. 28/35/2010-LAB, the Government of Goa in exercise of powers

conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act of

14 of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the existing dispute between the Margao Municipal

Council, Margao-Goaand its workman Shri Chandrakant Daune, has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji Goa, constituted under Section 7-A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Margao Municipal Council, Margao, Goa in terminating the services of its

workman, Shri Chandrakant Daune, with effect from 13/11/2007, is legal and justified?

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

Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered as IT/32/2010 and registered A/D notices were

issued to both the Parties. Upon receipt of the notices, both the Parties put in their appearance. The Party I

filed his Statement of Claim at Exhibit 8.

3. Briefly it is the case of the Party I/Workman that he was initially employed by the Party II with effect

from 14/10/1997 for 30 days as per the Appointment Order No. 1703/97 which date of appointment in the

Council has since been admitted and confirmed by the Chief Officer in his information under R.T.I. vide his

Communication dated 22/05/2007. The Workman/Party I craves leave to rely upon and produce Xerox

copies of the said Communication issued by the Chief Officer of the Council as and when required. Party I

states that his employment with the Council was extended regularly with appointment orders for 30 days to

60 days at a time. Party I further states that he along with 38 other workers were employed on daily wages

from time to time for various period of the year.

4. The Party I/Workman states that in view of a subsisting settlement between the Council and their

workers, the Union had raised an industrial dispute with the Council/Party II on the matter of regularization

of services of those daily rated workers who had completed continuous services of 240 days service in the

Council and the matter was referred to the conciliation media as provided under Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. The Party I/Workman stated that the issue of regularization of 39 employees which included the name

of Party I was kept hanging along with some other issues and the Council remained defiant and adamant to

solve the grievance of the workmen.

5. The Party I/Workman stated that he joined the services of the Party II/Council on 14/10/1997 and

during the year 1998 itself having worked for more than 240 days without break in services, he was eligible

for regularization in the services of the Party II/Council as per existing settlement.

6. In this reference the Party I/Workman has challenged the action of the Chief Officer of Margao

Municipal Council in terminating his services by Order No. 1/115/88–Adm./Vol.IV/1857 dated 13/11/2007

alleging that the Workman/Party I is continuously absent from the date mentioned in the Column-3 where it

is mentioned “April 2007 and prays for his reinstatement. The Party I/Workman however pending the

reference since expired and his Legal Heirs, his wife, Smt. Minaxi Daune and his children, daughter, Smt.

Disksha Daune and Son, Shri Reshab Daune were brought on record.

7. The Party II has disputed the Claim of the Party I/Workman in their Written Statement at Exhibit 11.

8. Considering the pleadings put forth by both the Parties, this Tribunal framed the following Issues.

763

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

ISSUES

Whether the Party I proves that the action of Party II in terminating his services by order No.

1/115/88-Adm/Vol.IV/1857 dated 13/11/2007 alleging that he is continuously absent from April,

2007 is false, illegal and bad in law?

Whether the Party I proves that the action of Party II agreeing to reinstate him on or before

18/12/09 pursuant to understanding with Dy. Labour Commissioner, South Goa on 7/12/09 and

thereafter not reinstating him is illegal?

Whether the Party II proves that since there are special terms and conditions of services/special

rules and regulations of employment for municipal servants, the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable in the present case?

Whether the Party II proves that as per the said special rules, the authority from the Directorate of

Municipal Administration is the competent authority to entertain and adjudicate the disputes about

the municipal servants including the Party I and therefore this court has no jurisdiction to

entertain this dispute?

What relief? What Award?

9. Thereafter the Party I/Workman was examined and when the matter was pending for recording

evidence of the Parties, this Tribunal thought it appropriate to intervene into the matter and accordingly

impressed upon both the Parties to come to an amicable settlement. Accordingly, both the Parties after long

negotiations arrived at a settlement by which the entire dispute was settled by paying an amount of Rs.

2,90,000/- to the Legal Heirs of the Party I/Workman and accordingly the terms of settlement along with the

cheque were filed today duly signed by both the Parties which has been accepted by this Tribunal.

10. Both the Parties have filed the terms of Settlement along with the copy of the extract of the Minutes

of the Ordinary Meeting of the Margao Municipal Council held on 18/07/2025 at Exhibit 50 Colly.

11. The terms of Settlement are as follows:

Both Parties submit that the matter has been settled between the Parties as per suggestions

made by the Tribunal and that Party II has paid to Party I a sum of Rs. 2,90,000.00 by cheque

No. 008799 dated 12/08/2025 drawn on HDFC Bank, Margao.

Party I hereby confirms that she has received the above cheque in settlement of the present

dispute.

Both Parties pray that an Award may please be passed in terms of above settlement.

Party I shall file necessary Affidavits before the Party II for claiming legal dues.

12. I have gone through the application along with the copy of the extract of the Minutes of the

Ordinary Meeting of the Margao Municipal Council held on 18/07/2025 at Exh. 50Colly filed on record

duly signed by both the Parties. The terms of settlement are acceptable to both the Parties which in my view,

are just and fair to bring about harmony and industrial peace. As such the Settlement is accepted.

In view of above, I pass the following Order:

ORDER

(i)

The reference at the instance of both the Parties stands disposed off in view of the Settlement

arrived by both the Parties at Exhibit 50 Colly.

(ii)

No order as to costs.

764

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

(iii)

Inform the Government accordingly.

Vijayalaxmi R. Shivolkar, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court.

Panaji.

________

Notification

The following Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on 20/08/2025

in Case Ref. No. IT/26/2005 is hereby published as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Amalia O.F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim.

_______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Shivolkar, Hon’ble Presiding Officer)

Case No. IT/26/2005

Mr. Domnic Dias (since deceased),

1) Legal heirs Smt. Filomena Domnic Dias (wife)

2) Shri Rolan Dias (Son)

3) Renie Dias (Daughter)

Rep. by the Goa MRF Employees Union, Saidham Dhavalimol,

Ponda-Goa

… Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s M.R.F. Limited, Curti,

Ponda-Goa.

… Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Learned Adv. Shri P. Agrawal.

Employer/Party II represented by Adv. S. B. Karpe along with Adv. Ms. S. Vaigankar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 20^thday of the month of August of the year 2025)

By order dated 19/07/2005 bearing No. 28/46/2003-LAB/361, 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 this Tribunal for adjudication:

SCHEDULE

“(1)

Whether the action of the management of M/s MRF Limited, Usgao, in demoting Shri Domnic

Dias, from the post of Operator IV Grade to the post of Operator III Grade, with effect from

28/02/2025-LAB/PART-VI/531

Date : 04-Sep-2025

765

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

24/11/2003, is legal and justified?

(2)

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

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered as IT/26/2005 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the Parties. Pursuant to service of notice, Party I filed his Claim Statement at Exhibit 4.

3. It is the case of the Party I that since the formation of the Union, the Company has been attempting

to disrupt the unity of the workmen employed by the Company and who are members of the Union. Of late

there has been large scale harassment and victimization of the union office bearers and its other members

due to their legitimate trade union activities. The harassment, inter-alia, include illegal changes in service

conditions, unjustified and unwarranted suspensions, charge-sheets on false and fabricated charges, refusal

to negotiate in good faith and impositions of unfair labour practices in the guise of following management

policy etc. and further including the present illegal suspension of the Union’s member Mr. Domnic Dias.

4. The Party I states that by letter dated 31-01-2003, the said workman was issued a charge-sheet cum

order of suspension pending inquiry and final orders, which was illegal and untenable at law. It was based

on the allegation that on 30/01/2003, in Shift II, the Party I/Workman had reported for work under the

influence of alcohol and he was also charged for allegedly placing a wrong identification tag on the stock,

which purportedly amounted to misconduct. The Party I states that the charges mentioned in the charge-

sheet did not concur with the facts mentioned therein and the workman was called upon to submit his

explanation within 48 hours and the charge-sheet was also signed by an unidentified person whom the

workman believes to be incompetent to sign the same.

5. The Party I states that the enquiry into the aforesaid alleged charge of misconduct commenced from

13-03-2003 and concluded on 25-10-2003 and during the enquiry proceedings throughout, the Workman

had co-operated fully and completely with the conduct of enquiry proceedings which is evident from the

record of the enquiry proceedings and therefore it was totally unjustified, malafide and improper for the

Enquiry Officer to have blamed the Workman and his defence representatives for the purported delay.

6. It is further the case of the Party I that the charge-sheet issued against the said Workman was ex-

facie illegal and untenable at law. That the said workman was not allowed to be defended by person of his

choice. That the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry devoid of the principles of natural justice.

Further, the Inquiry Officer did not afford any opportunity of defence to the said workman nor did he call

upon the parties to give their final submission before closing the inquiry proceedings.

7. The Party I states that that there was no evidence supporting the charges leveled against the said

Workmen and that the charges leveled did not constitute any misconduct under the Standing Orders at all,

that the enquiry held against the said Workman was devoid of any rule of natural justice and was clearly ex-

facie unfair and improper. That the said workman was prejudiced at each stage of the inquiry. That the

illegal demotion of the said Workman is an act of unfair labour practice under Schedule V of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

8. The Party I states that the findings of the Enquiry Officer, if any, were not supplied to the workman

and therefore denied him a chance to give his explanation against the said findings. Nor was he issued

show-cause notice after completion of the enquiry proceedings neither sought explanation to the punishment

of demotion and was served with the Order of Demotion. It is stated that the demotion of the said Workman

had been resorted by the Company to victimize the said Workman for his legitimate trade union activities.

9. It is stated that the demotion of the said Workman imposed in the above circumstances also

tantamount to act of unfair labour practices under items 5(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) as well as Items 13 and 14

of the Fifth Schedule to the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Hence, it is prayed that the punishment of

demotion imposed on Mr. Domnic Dias be revoked, quashed forthwith and the said Mr. Domnic be paid full

wages for the period of demotion imposed on him by Order dated 31/01/2003 with continuity of the service

and other consequential reliefs.

766

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

10. In its Written Statement filed at Exhibit 5, the Party II submits that the Party I/Workman was

charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet dated 31/01/2003 for reporting on duty under the influence of alcohol on

30/01/2003 in Shift II and also for his act of wrongly identifying stock without checking code printed on the

stock and thus acting negligently which are serious acts of misconduct under the Certified Standing Orders

of the Company. The Party II stated that as the charges were serious in nature, the Party I/Workman was

suspended pending enquiry and till final orders.

11. The Party II submits that the Party I/Workman offered his explanation to the charge-sheet vide his

letter dated 14/02/2003 and as the Management found the explanation unsatisfactory, a domestic enquiry

was initiated to look into the charges leveled against the Party I/Workman. The Party II submits that the

enquiry was conducted by Mr. Claudio Fernandes and the Management was represented by Mr. Crosby

D’Souza which commenced on 13/03/2003 and was closed on 25/10/2003 after giving the Party I/Workman

sufficient opportunity to defend the charges leveled against him.

12. The Party II submitted that during the entire enquiry proceedings beginning from 13/03/2003 till the

conclusion on 25/10/2003, the Enquiry Officer conducted the proceedings in a fair and just manner and

applied the principles of natural justice at each stage of the enquiry and the dates of the enquiry were fixed

with the mutual consent of the Parties and therefore contended that no inconvenience was caused to the

Party I/Workman. The Party II submits that the Workman was given sufficient opportunities to meet the

charges and as such no show-cause notice was required to be given on completion of the enquiry

proceedings. Based on the proceedings of the entire enquiry, the findings of guilt and the seriousness of the

misconduct was proved at the enquiry and as such the Workman was demoted at work as punishment.

13. The Party II submitted that the charge-sheet dated 31/01/2003 is legal and as per the Certified

Standing Orders of the Company. It is denied that the demotion is imposed to victimize the Workman for the

legitimate trade union activities as alleged. The Party II submitted that the charge-sheet has been signed by

Mr. Michael Ribeiro, the then Manager who was authorized and competent to do so. It is denied that the

findings of the Enquiry Officer were not supplied to the Party I/Workman. The Party II denied that the

illegal demotion of Party I/Workman is an act of unfair labour practice under Schedule V of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and further denied that the demotion of the Party I/Workman has been resorted by the

Company to victimize the said Workman for his legitimate trade union activities. The Party II submits that

the action of the Party II in demoting the Party I/Workman is legal and justified and no case is made out by

the Party I/Workman in the present matter.

14. The Party II submits that the demotion by way of punishment was consequent to properly conducted

enquiry and based on proved acts of misconduct committed by the workman. The Party II states that the

enquiry was fair and proper and was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The

Party I was given every opportunity to defend himself and only after appreciating the evidence on record,

the Party II considered the findings of the Enquiry Officer and concurred with the same. The Party II also

considered the past records of the Party I and considering the gravity of the proved misconducts, the

management imposed a lighter punishment of demotion by way of punishment on the workman.

15. The Part II therefore states that the demotion by way of punishment of Party I is legal and justified.

Party II specifically denied that there are any illegal changes in the service conditions or unjustified or

unwarranted demotions or charge-sheets issued to the workmen on false and fabricated charges or that there

is refusal to negotiate in good faith as alleged. It is denied that there is commission of unfair labour

practices. It is denied that the charge-sheet issued against the said workman was ex-facie illegal and

untenable at law. It is denied that the management has predicted punitive action against the workman or that

the said workman was not allowed to be defended by a person of his choice.

16. It is further denied that the Enquiry Officer erred in coming to the conclusion of guilt as alleged. It

is further denied that the Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate the evidence of the workman or that they were

biased. It is denied that the Order of Demotion by way of punishment was for collateral purpose or was

solely to victimize the workman for his continued allegiance to the said Union as alleged. It is denied that

the Demotion Order was in violation of any unfair labour practices and further denied that there was no

evidence supporting the charges leveled to the said workman. It is denied that the punishment imposed on

the said workman was grossly disproportionate to the charges leveled against him.

767

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

17. The Party II submitted that the action of the Company is fair, legal and proper and the Party I is not

entitled to any reliefs as prayed for. The Party II further prays that the reference may please be rejected.

18. The Party I in its Rejoinder at Exhibit 8 repeats and reiterates all averments made by him in the

State of Claim and denies all the averments made by Party II in its Written Statement which run contrary to

the pleadings in the Statement of Claim.

19. On completion of the pleadings, issues were framed at Exhibit 9 by this Tribunal which reads as

under:

ISSUES

Whether the Party I proves that the charge-sheet issued against him was illegal?

Whether the Party I proves that the inquiry held against him was not fair and proper?

Whether the Party I proves that penalty of demotion is illegal, disproportionate, unfair labour

practice and amounts to victimization?

Whether the findings of misconduct levelled against Party I are justified by the evidence led during

the course of the enquiry or before the Tribunal?

4a.

Whether the Party I proves that the findings of misconduct levelled against him are unjustified and

illegal and same being not proved by legally acceptable evidence? (the issue No. 4 has been re-

framed as the original Issue No. 4 did not cast burden on any Party to prove the same)

What Award?

20. From the issues framed hereinabove, Issue No. 1, 2 and 4 have been taken up to be tried as

preliminary issues and accordingly Order dated 10/10/2024 has been passed by this Tribunal holding all the

issues in the negative. Party I thereafter led evidence in respect of remaining Issue No. 3 and my findings to

the same with reasons are as follows:

Issue No. 3

In the Negative

Issue No. 5

As per Final Order

REASONS

21. Issue No. 3: It is a matter of record that, this Tribunal has passed an Order dated 10/10/2024 on

preliminary issue No. 1, 2 and 4 holding Issue No. 1 and 2 in the negative, by giving a finding that the

Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry in consonance with the principles of natural justice, hence the

enquiry was held to be fair and proper. By the said Order, dated 10/10/2024 this Tribunal was pleased to

answer the Issue No.4 in the negative while concluding that the Enquiry Officer had analysed the evidence

on record in depth and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on legally acceptable evidence.

22. After passing the order on the preliminary issues, opportunity was given to both the parties to the

present reference to adduce further evidence in support of Issue No. 3. The Party I/Workman examined Shri

Rohidas Naik and closed their evidence. Whereas the Party II made an endorsement stating that they do not

wish to lead any further evidence in the matter. Accordingly, the matter proceeded to hear final arguments

on merits on all the remaining issues.

23. This Tribunal while deciding the Issue No. 1 and 4 against the Workman/Party I has held that the

Party I/Workman could not bring anything on record to show that the enquiry was not conducted in terms of

principles of natural justice by not allowing assistance of his choice, to refute the said plea. The Party II

relied upon Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v/s Maharashtra General Union and Ors. reported in

AIR 1999 SC 401 wherein the Supreme Court has observed that “In Kalindi and Ors. v. Tata Locomotive

768

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

& Engineering Company Ltd., (1960) II LLJ 228 SC, a Three-Judge Bench observed as under:- "we are

unable to accept an argument that natural justice demands that in the case of enquiries into a charge-sheet of

misconduct against a workman he should be represented by a member of his Union. Besides it is necessary

to remember that if any enquiry is not otherwise fair, the workman concerned can challenge its validity in an

industrial dispute. Our conclusion therefore is that a workman against whom an enquiry is being held by the

management has no right to be represented at such enquiry by a representative of his Union: though of

course an employer in his discretion can and may allow his employee to avail himself of such assistance." In

another decision, namely Dunlop Rubber Company v. Workmen, (1965) ILL J 426 SC, it was laid down

that there was no right to representation in the disciplinary proceedings by another person unless the Service

Rules specifically provided for the same. In the present case the Standing Orders permitted an employee to

be represented by a clerk or workman working in the same department as the delinquent. So also the right to

representation can be regulated or restricted by statute. "The earlier decisions in Kalindi and Others v.

Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co. Ltd. (supra); Dunlop Rubber Co. v. Workmen (supra) and

Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. Subba Raman (S.) and Anr., 1961 (2) LL J 417, were followed andit was held

that the law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee as part of his

right to be heard. It was further specified that there is no right to representation as such unless the company,

by its Standing Orders, recognizes such a right."As such, in-light of these observations the said contention

of the Party I is unsustainable.

24. The inquiry proceeding at Exhibit E1 Colly further reveals that the Party I had participated in the

said enquiry proceeding and when shown to him before the Tribunal, identified the signature on the said

proceeding. As regards his allegation that the Management Representative did not submit the list of

documents and the names of the witnesses who would be examined in the course of enquiry, the party

I/Workman was again confront with the enquiry proceedings at E-1 Colly and again he identified his

signature on the said proceeding on Page 208 and 210. The Party I/Workman also stated he having examined

one witness by name Ramesh Naik on his side in the said enquiry.

25. As regards the workman’s allegations that he was not allowed to cross-examine the Management’s

witness, Mr. Martin Pires, it is in the evidence of Mr. Claudio Fernandes, Management witness who was the

Enquiry Officer in the said proceeding that he did not allow the Workman to cross-examine the Management

witness on behalf of Management, the MR had only produced the documents and there was no oral

statement given by the MR.

26. In the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors vs. Karunakar and Ors. reported

in AIR 1994 SC 1074 wherein it is held that "Hence, in all cases where the Inquiry Officer's report is not

furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals should cause

the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before

coming to the Court/Tribunal, and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was

prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, The Court/Tribunal comes to

the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and

the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment the

Courts/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was

not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The courts should avoid resorting to short-cuts. Since it

is the Court/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting

aside or not setting aside the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate of revisional authority),

there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable

opportunity." And in Jankinath Sarangivs State of Orissa 1999 (3) SCC 392 the SC observed that "we

have to look what actual prejudice has been caused to a person by the supposed denial to him of a particular

right". As such, it is submitted that the Opponent has failed to show any prejudice being occasioned on

account of not serving the findings of the enquiry officer prior to passing of the Order of Dismissal.

27. As held in Divisional Manager, Plantation Division, Andaman and Nicobar Islands vs Munnu

Barrick and Ors (reported in (2005) 2 SCC 237)" The principles of natural justice cannot be put in a strait-

jacket formula. It must be viewed with flexibility. In a given case, where a deviation takes place as regard

compliance of the principles of natural justice, the Court may insist upon proof of prejudice before setting

769

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

aside the order impugned before it. [Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, AIR blow your 90

2004 SC 2227]”

28. The workman was given an opportunity to demonstrate the prejudice caused to him on account of

the Enquiry Officer not following the fair procedure and the inquiry being hit by principles of natural

justice. The workman when examined himself before this Tribunal in his chief maintained his allegation of

he being denied fair opportunity to be represented by the person of his choice, being denied fair opportunity

to cross-examine the management witnesses as well as being denied fair opportunity to lead his defence.

However, in the cross-examination he could not stand by his statement made in the examination-in-chief

and contradicted his own version by admitting the relevant and material fact that has taken place during the

inquiry when he was confronted with the inquiry proceeding at Exhibit E1 Colly. From the evidence above,

it can be fairly concluded that the Party I/Workman could not place anything on record to substantiate his

claim that the inquiry conducted against him was not fair and proper and that the same was conducted by

violating the principles of natural justice. Hence this issue is answered in the negative.

29. That while deciding Issue No. 2 in the negative against the Party I/Workman and in favour of the

management, this Tribunal held that the Management witness No.5, Mr. Irish Pinto, the Shift Foreman too

has supported and corroborated the version of MW1 as regards the charges leveled against the Party

I/Workman. It is at the instruction of Mr. Irish Pinto that the Party I/Workman was sent to the Ambulance

Room by Mr. Undi for the Breath Analyzer Alcoholic Test when he found that the Party I/Workman was

smelling of alcohol consumption when he came to meet him in the Banbury Dept. at his instruction. In the

cross, when asked to MW5 whether he had any evidence to the effect as to who has written the timing on

the tag to which he had replied that it is being done by the person who tags it and at the relevant time CSW

was the Stacker and that he had written the timing on the tag which fact was again confirmed by Mr. Undi

who identified the said writing as that of the CSW. The CSW in his cross-examination admitted that the

stock on the Conveyor is identified by the Stacker from the code printed on the stock and the same is

confirmed with the Millman which stock is running. On 28/01/2003, he said he was working in Shift II as a

Stacker at Banbury No.2. Thus, the CSW identified that he was the Stacker on Banbury No.2 on

28/01/2003.

30. The CSW has taken a defence that he was sick and he had been examined by the Assistant Nurse for

his alleged sickness, however, he demolished his own defence in the cross wherein he stated that he did not

report sick to the Ambulance Room on 30/01/2003 nor does he recollect he taking any medication on

30/01/2003. When asked as to what was the exact time when he was subjected for Breath Analyzer Test

after he reported for work, the Party I/Workman instead of denying that he was sent for Breath Analyzer

Test, stated he does not recollect the timing. This shows that the CSW was infact referred to the Breath

Analyzer Test, if not he would have straight away denied he being subjected to Breath Analyzer test. Thus,

there is sufficient prima facie evidence brought on record through all the Management witnesses against the

charges in the charge-sheet issued to the Party I/Workman.

31. In the case of the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay and Ors. V/s Vijay Ratanrao Surve

and Ors. reported in 2000 (2) Bom CR 453 wherein it has been held that “Once it is revealed that there

was some evidence before the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry was conducted fairly, following the

principles of natural justice, it cannot be said that the findings are bad-in-law”.

32. In the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur V/s Nemi Chand Nalwaya reported in AIR 2011

SC 1931“It is now well settled that the Courts will not act as an Appellate Court and reassess the evidence

led in the domestic enquiry nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on

record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question

of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with

the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, Courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in

departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly

perverse”.

33. In the case of State Bank of India and Ors. V/s Narendra Kumar Pandey reported in AIR 2013

SC 904 holding that “In a departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority is expected to prove the charges

on preponderance of probability and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

770

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

34. In the case of State of Haryana v/s. Ratan Singh reported in 1977 (34) FLR 264, it was held that

:“it is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian

Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible.

There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that

departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should

not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition

it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case law and other

authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of

extraneous material or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the

basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions

reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below

misdirect themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased

and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The ‘residuum’ rule to which

counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from American jurisprudence does not go

to that extent nor does the passages from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was

there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court

proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept.

Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond

scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into

because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of

Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge leveled

against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground.

35. In the case of Mahesh Pal Singh v. Superintending Engineer, Lower Chambal Circle & Ors.

reported in 2001 (I) LLR 887 it was held that “It may, however, be noticed that it is by now well

established that strict laws of evidence are not applicable to the departmental proceedings and the insistence

on the observance of the rules of evidence by the disciplinary authorities, would rob the administrative law

of its utility and the needed flexibility as it hinders or hampers them unduly in their task of weighing

evidence and deciding on facts, besides resulting in the exclusion of much of the evidence of probative

value. It may, however, be emphasized that the decision of the disciplinary authority must be based on

material of some probative value which tends to logically show the existence of facts relevant to the issue to

be determined. If the material relied upon by the disciplinary authority is capable of probative value, the

weight to be attached to it is a matter for the said authority entrusted with the responsibility of deciding the

issue. We are of the clear opinion that if the material relied upon is capable of having any probative value;

the weight to be attached to it is a matter for the disciplinary authority entrusted with the responsibility of

deciding the issue. It is the preponderance of probability that matters. In the matters regarding departmental

proceedings, the expression to prove a charge has to be taken as distinguishable from the evidence which

merely raises a suspicion. The proof has to be capable of scrutiny and should stand the test of

reasonableness consistent with the normal conduct and probability. The rule followed in criminal trial that

an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt is not applicable to the

departmental proceedings”.

36. The Party II/Employer thus by way of acceptable evidence on record could prove that the Enquiry

Officer’s findings in respect of those charges were in terms of the procedures laid down under the Act and

by following due procedure as per the Certified Standing Orders and in accordance with the principles of

natural justice. However, on the other hand, the Party I/Workman could not prove that the grounds of

misconducted alleged to have been conducted by him are false and has been leveled with a sole intent to

victimize him. The Party I/Workman also could not prove that the enquiry conducted against him in respect

of the charges and the findings given by the Enquiry Officer are illegal, improper, bad in law, malafide and

unjustified and that the Management has failed to prove the same by way of legally acceptable evidence.

Hence, the Issue No. 2 stands answered in the negative.

37. Shri Rohidas Naik in his Affidavit-in-Evidence though was required to bring before the Tribunal

additional evidence on record with reference to Issue No. 3, to show that how the charge-sheet issued

against the Party I/Workman was illegal and the findings of the misconduct levelled against him are illegal,

but his evidence in the Affidavit-in-Evidence is in reference to the matter generally connected with the oral

771

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

demand of the Goa MRF Employees Union, on job requirement as per Industrial Engineering Standard and

on the other issues such as Settlement dated 12/05/2004 in relation to its Tiruvottiyur Unit in Tamil Nadu,

the standards fixed by the Department for Production, reference to IED Report. The additional evidence

through Rohidas Naik did not touch any of the issues pertaining to Issue No.1, 2 and 4 nor it touched upon

the subject as regards to Issue No. 3 to prove as to why and how the punishment given to the Party

I/Workman was inappropriate or to prove that the penalty of demotion is illegal and disproportionate. The

evidence brought on record through Rohidas Naik is not in consonance with the Claim Statement filed by

the Party I/Workman nor it can be said that the evidence by Rohidas Naik is supporting or corroborating the

evidence on record either in the enquiry proceedings or with the evidence of the workman and other

witnesses recorded before this Tribunal. As such, the additional evidence on record does not in any manner

support the Party I/Workman to say that the penalty of demotion is illegal or disproportionate.

38. Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under: 11-A.Powers of Labour Courts,

Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen. –

Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a

Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication

proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order

of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal

and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such

other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as

the circumstances of the case may require.

39. In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra v/s N. B. Narawade 2005 I CLR 803 the Court has

observed that "Whether it is open to the Industrial Tribunal or the labour court or the High Court to interfere

with the quantum of punishment is, no longer, res integra, as the question has been answered by this Court

several times it its various decisions in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India [1995(6) SCC 749] a three-

Judge Bench of this Court held that that Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confers power on

the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court to apply its mind on the question of proportion of punishment or

penalty that this power is also available to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, though it

was qualified with a limitation that while seized as a writ court, interference is permissible only when the

punishment/penalty is shockingly disproportionate."

40. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the citation above was pleased to sets aside the order of

dismissal and directs the reinstatement passed by Division Bench, Single Judge of the High Court and that

of the Labour Court and uphold the order of the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent- workman

from service.

41. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble apex court in respect of Section 11-A in this Judgment

reads “It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, 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 concerned workman 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 Section 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. In the

absence of any such factor existing, the Labour Court cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the power

under Section 11-A of the Act and reduce the punishment.

42. In this case records reveal that the Party I/Workman was given fair opportunity to defend himself in

the domestic enquiry against the charges leveled against him in the charge-sheet. Before this Tribunal also

the Party I was given opportunity to enable him to discard the allegations in the charge-sheet which was said

to be proved by the Enquiry Officer in the said domestic enquiry by producing supporting evidence to show

that the Party I under the influence of alcohol wrongly identified the stock without checking the code

printed on the Stock and thereby committed an act of negligence.

772

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

43. Therefore, considering the overall evidence on record as well as considering the acts of misconduct

as defined in the Certified Standing Orders coupled with the ratio laid in the judicial pronouncements as

mentioned herein above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the Party I has failed to prove that the action of

the management of M/s. MRF Ltd Usgao, Ponda in awarding punishment of demotion of deceased Shri

Domnic Dias from the post of Operator IV Grade to post of Operator III Grade w.e.f. 24/11/2003 is illegal

and unjustified. As such, Party I is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the Statement of Claim and hence

the Issue No.3 stands answered in negative.

Hence the Order:

ORDER

(i)

The punishment of demoting deceased Shri Domnic Dias from the post of Operator IV Grade to

post of Operator III Grade is legal and justified.

(ii)

As such, the Legal Heirs of the deceased Party I/Workman, Mr. Domnic Diasare not entitled for

any relief.

(iii)

No order as to cost.

(iv)

Inform the Government accordingly.

Vijayalaxmi R. Shivolkar, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court.

Panaji.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Law

Law (Establishment) Division

Order

Government of Goa is pleased to appoint Adv. Yash Tembe, as Government Lawyer on behalf of State

of Goa to appear and defend the interest of the State Government in the matters before the Hon’ble National

Green Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune with immediate effect and until further orders.

He shall be paid fees as per the existing terms and conditions laid down by the Government vide Order

No. 1/19/2015/LD(Estt.)/1515 dated 05/09/2023, as applicable to Government Advocates/Additional

Government Advocates and as amended from time to time, on submission of bills (in duplicate) alongwith

the attendance certificate, issued by the Registrar of the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, Western Zone

Bench, Pune. He shall comply with the instructions contained in the Government Circular No. 4-43-99/LD

dated 04/05/2000. He will appear in those matters, which would be allotted to him by the Ld. Advocate

General of the State of Goa.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Estt.), Law.

Porvorim.

1/2/2022/LD(Estt.)/2099

Date : 02-Sep-2025

773

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

Sr.

No.

Name and present posting of the officer

Posted as

Shri Pretesh Babu Shetye, BDO-I, Directorate of Panchayats,

North (HQ)

BDO-II, Bardez

Department of Personnel

Order

The Governor of Goa is pleased to grant further extension in service to Shri. Liladhar B. Dessai, Deputy

Director, Directorate of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation, Porvorim beyond the date of his superannuation

for further period of one year w.e.f. 01/09/2025 to 31/08/2026, in public interest. This order is subject to

Vigilance Clearance from Vigilance Department, concurrence of Finance Department and approval of

Council of Ministers.

The extension is further subject to termination without assigning any reasons during the period of

extension.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Durga Kinlekar, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim.

________

Order

Shri Praveen Shirodkar, Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes shall hold the charges of Deputy Director

(Admn.), PWD & Deputy Director, Department of Drinking Water (DDW) and Shri Krishnakant Sakharam

Pangam, Deputy Director (Admn.), Panchayats shall hold the charges of SLAO, PWD & SLAO, National

Highways in addition to their own duties with immediate effect.

This issues on the recommendation of the Goa Services Board.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim.

__________

Order

On the recommendation of the Goa Services Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order the transfer

and posting of the following Officers in the cadre of Block Development Officer, in public interest, with

immediate effect:-

Shri Siddesh Surya Kerkar, BDO-II, Directorate of Panchayats, North (HQ) shall hold the charge of

BDO-I, Directorate of Panchayats, North (HQ) in addition to his own duties.

The officers shall complete handing over and taking over process with immediate effect and submit

compliance.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim.

13/06/2024-PER/2635

Date : 29-Aug-2025

5/3/2025-PER/2663

Date : 02-Sep-2025

15/23/2023-PER/2747

Date : 08-Sep-2025

774

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

Order

On the recommendation of the Goa Services Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order the transfer

and posting of the following Senior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service, in public interest, with immediate

effect:-

Sr.

No.

Name and present posting of the officer

Posted as

Shri Rajesh Ajgaonkar, awaiting posting

Commissioner of Labour and Employment

Smt. Siddhi T. Halarnkar, Director of Panchayat

Director of Civil Aviation

Shri Mahadev Araundekar, Director of Civil Aviation

Director of Panchayat

Shri Bala T. Korgaonkar, Senior Scale Officer of Goa Civil Service, holding charge of Dy. Director

(Admn.), Goa Medical College shall also hold the charge of Dy. Director (Admn.), Goa Dental College until

further orders.

The officers shall complete handing over and taking over process with immediate effect and submit

compliance.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Durga Kinlekar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I)/Link.

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Public Health

Order

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide letter No.

COM/II/11/56(2)/07/160 dated 11/08/2025, the Government is pleased to promote following Assistant

Chemists (Drugs) to the post of Chemist (Drugs) (Group ‘B’ Non-Gazetted) in the Directorate of Food &

Drugs Administration on regular basis in the Level 6 of Pay Matrix of 7^th Pay Commission [PB-2 Rs. 9300-

34800 + Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- (pre-revised)] on regular basis with immediate effect.

1. Smt. Tania A.P. Fernandes e Vales.

2. Shri Satyavan S. Naik.

The above Officers shall be on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Dr. Pooja Madkaikar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Revenue

Order

The Government of Goa is pleased to transfer the following Inspector of Survey & Land Records, in the

public interest with immediate effect.

No. 6/5/2023-PER/2749

Date : 08-Sep-2025

13/25/2002-I/PHD/1142

Date : 08-Sep-2025

26/11/2015-RD(Part-I)/2653

Date : 04-Sep-2025

775

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

S/N

Name of the Officer

Present posting

New place of posting

Shri Rajesh R. Pai Kuchelkar,

ISLR

Inspector of Survey & Land

Records, Ponda

Inspector of Survey & Land

Records, Ponda with addl. charge of

Inspector of Survey & Land

Records, Dharbandora.

Smt. Vinita Kambli, ISLR

Inspector of Survey & Land

Records, Pernem

Assistant Survey & Settlement

Officer, Panaji.

Shri Babaji Parab, ISLR

Inspector of Survey & Land

Records, Dharbandora

Inspector of Survey & Land

Records, Pernem.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Vrushika Kauthankar, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Rural Development

District Rural Development Agency, North Goa District

Order

In terms of the Order issued by the Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Rural Development,

Government of India, New Delhi vide No. Q-13016/02/2019-DISHA dated 08^th August, 2024, the District

Development Co-ordination and Monitoring Committee (DDCMC) ‘DISHA’ is being constituted for North

Goa District for monitoring and implementation of the programmes and schemes sponsored by Government

of India in accordance with the prescribed procedure and guidelines.

The composition of the Committee is as under:

Sr.

No.

Name of the Person/Designation

Name of the Department/Designation

Designation in the

Committee

Shri. Shripad Yesso Naik

Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), North Goa

District

Chairperson.

Shri. Captain Viriato Fernandes

Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), South Goa

District

Co-Chairperson.

Members of the State

Legislative Assembly (MLAs)

North Goa District Assembly Constituencies of

Mandrem, Pernem, Bicholim, Tivim, Mapusa,

Siolim, Saligao, Calangute, Porvorim, Aldona,

Panaji, Taleigao, St. Cruz, St. Andre,

Cumbharjua, Maem, Sanquelim, Poriem,

Valpoi

Members.

4(i)

Mayor

Corporation of the City of Panjim

Member.

(ii)

Chairperson

Mapusa Municipal Council

Member.

(iii)

Chairperson

Pernem Municipal Council

Member.

(iv)

Chairperson

Bicholim Municipal Council

Member.

(v)

Chairperson

Sanqulim Municipal Council

Member.

(vi)

Chairperson

Valpoi Municipal Council

Member.

Chairperson

Zilla Panchayat, North Goa District

Member.

Chief Executive Officer

Zilla Panchayat, North Goa District

Member.

No. DRDA-N/MON./8-91/2025-26/1490

Date : 19-Aug-2025

776

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

Project Director

District Rural Development Agency, North

Goa District

Member.

Lead Bank Officer

State Bank of India, Panaji, North Goa District

Member.

Senior Superintendent/

Superintendent

Postal Department, Mapusa, North Goa

District

Member.

10.

District Collector

North Goa District

Member Secretary.

11.

Nodal Functionaries of all the Programmes under purview of DISHA, North Goa District

(i)

Director

Directorate of Health Services

Member.

(ii)

Director

Directorate of Education

Member.

(iii)

Director

Sarva Siksha Abhiyan/Goa Rashtriya

Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan

Member.

(iv)

Director

Directorate of Women & Child Development

Member.

(v)

Principal Chief Engineer

Public Works Department

Member.

(vi)

Director

Directorate of Social Welfare

Member.

(vii)

Director

Directorate of Civil Supplies and Consumer

Affairs

Member.

(viii)

Director

Directorate of Agriculture

Member.

(ix)

Director

Directorate of Settlement & Land Records

Member

(x)

Member Secretary

Goa State Urban Development Agency

Member.

(xi)

Managing Director & CEO

Imagine Panaji Smart City Dev. Ltd.

Member.

(xii)

Director

Directorate of Skill Development &

Entrepreneurship

Member.

(xiii)

Director

Directorate of Information Technology

Member.

(xiv)

Chief Engineer

Water Resources Department

Member.

(xv)

Director

Directorate of Mines & Geology

Member.

(xvi)

Director

Directorate of Panchayat

Member.

(xvii)

Captain of Ports

Department of River Navigation

Member.

(xviii)

Director

Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary

Services

Member.

(xix)

Director

Directorate of Transport

Member.

(xx)

Director

Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs

Member.

(xxi)

Commissioner of Labour and

Employment

Office of the Commissioner, Labour and

Employment

Member.

(xxii)

Director

Department for Empowerment of Persons with

Disabilities

Member.

(xxiii)

Director

Department of New & Renewable Energy

Member.

12.

Joint Secretary

Department of Administrative Reforms

Member.

13. i.

Sarpanch

Village Panchayat Ibrampur, Pernem

Member.

ii.

Sarpanch

Village Panchayat Corlim, Tiswadi

Member.

iii.

Sarpanch

Village Panchayat Korgao, Pernem

Member.

iv.

Sarpanch (Women

Representative)

Village Panchayat Old Goa, Tiswadi.

Member.

iv.

Sarpanch (Women

Representative)

Village Panchayat Nadora, Bardez.

Member.

777

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

14.

Shri. Subhash Naik

Matrubhumi Seva Pratishthan, H.No. 206,

Badem, Salvado-do-Mundo, Bardez-Goa

Member.

15.

Shri Abhay Bhamaikar

Maluara, Agacaim

Member.

16.

Shri. Balchandra Usgaonkar

H. No. 421/1, Caraibhat, Carambolim,

Tiswadi-Goa 403110

Member.

17.

Smt. Arti Bandodkar

Mayem-Goa

Member.

The Committee shall meet once every quarter to monitor and review progress made by implementing

Departments/Agencies.

This Committee supersedes earlier Committee constituted vide Order No. DRDA-N/MON./8-91/2020-

21/237 dated 20/05/2020.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Sanjay Goel, IAS, Secretary (Rural Development).

Panaji.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Town and Country Planning

Notification

Whereas, the Town and Country Planning Department of the Government of Goa received applications

under sub-section (1) of Section 39A of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (Act 21 of 1975) for

change of zones in the Regional Plan for Goa 2021 in respect of the plots of land as specified in detail in

column Nos. (2) to (7) of the Table below (hereinafter referred to as “the said Proposals”);

TABLE

Sr.

No.

Name of the

Applicant

Survey No./

Sub-Division

No./P.T. Sheet

No./Chalta

No.

Name of

Village and

Taluka

Published land use

as per RPG-

2021/ODP

(Total Area) in m2

Proposed land

use

Area

proposed in

sq. mts.

Decision of the

Government

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Prestige Acres

Private

Limited rep.

by Mr. Kishor

Kumar

Kadrolkar

129/1

Sancoale,

Mormugao

Transportation/

warehousing &

communication

(T) Total Area

(24625)

Settlement

Zone

24625

Approved for

change of zone

Santosh Sonu

Gaonkar

39/2, Plot

No. 20

Sanguem,

Sanguem

Paddy Field

Total Area (270)

Settlement

Zone

270

Approved for

change of zone

as the property

is not low lying.

Nihal Suhas

Parvatkar

39/2, Plot

No. 25

Sanguem,

Sanguem

Paddy Field

Total Area (270)

Settlement

Zone

270

Approved for

change of zone

as the property

is not low lying.

Nihal Suhas

Parvatkar

39/2, Plot

No. 21

Sanguem,

Sanguem

Paddy Field

Total Area (270)

Settlement

Zone

270

Approved for

change of zone

as the property

is not low lying.

36/18/39A/Notification(9F)/TCP/2025/441

Date : 10-Sep-2025

778

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

Santosh Sonu

Gaonkar

39/2, Plot

No. 24

Sanguem,

Sanguem

Paddy Field

Total Area (270)

Settlement

Zone

270

Approved for

change of zone

as the property

is not low lying.

Santosh Sonu

Gaonkar

39/2, Plot

No. 22

Sanguem,

Sanguem

Paddy Field

Total Area (281)

Settlement

Zone

281

Approved for

change of zone

as the property

is not low lying.

Nihal Suhas

Parvatkar

39/2, Plot

No. 26

Sanguem,

Sanguem

Paddy Field

Total Area (270)

Settlement

Zone

270

Approved for

change of zone

as the property

is not low lying.

Nihal Suhas

Parvatkar

39/2, Plot

No. 19

Sanguem,

Sanguem

Paddy Field

Total Area (270)

Settlement

Zone

270

Approved for

change of zone

as the property

is not low lying.

Nihal Suhas

Parvatkar

39/2, Plot

No. 21

Sanguem,

Sanguem

Paddy Field

Total Area (270)

Settlement

Zone

270

Approved for

change of zone

as the property

is not low lying.

10.

Tome Rosario

Correira

314/8

Aldona,

Bardez

Orchard

Total Area (3250)

Settlement

zone

3250

Approved for

change of zone

11.

Imperial

Northstar

Exim LLP

42/1 (Part)

42/2 (Part)

Siridao,

Tiswadi

Partly Natural

Cover (3350m2)

Partly Natural

Cover with No

Development

Slope (1650m2)

Total Area (5000)

Settlement

zone

5000

Approved for

change of zone

12.

Imperial

Northstar

Exim LLP

44/1

Curca,

Tiswadi

Orchard

Total Area (6000)

Settlement

zone

6000

Approved for

change of zone

13.

Imperial

Northstar

Private

Limited

260/1-B

Morombi-O-

Grande,

Tiswadi

Partly Settlement,

Partly Natural

Cover with No

Development

Slope

Total Area (2626)

Natural Cover

with No

Development

Slope to

Settlement

609

Approved for

change of zone

14.

Ladlimashak

Salim Nadaf

236/1

Plot No.

189-B

Usgao,

Ponda

Natural Cover

Total Area (125)

Settlement

125

Approved for

change of zone

15.

Moirun Bi

Modinsab

Mulla

236/1

Plot No. 145

Usgao,

Ponda

Natural Cover

Total Area (225)

Settlement

225

Approved for

change of zone

16.

Pyaranbi

Abbas Nadaf

236/1 Plot

No. 56-A

Usgao,

Ponda

Natural Cover

Total Area (130)

Settlement

130

Approved for

change of zone

779

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

And whereas, in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Goa Town and Country Planning (Change of

zone of land in the Regional Plan or the Outline Development Plan) Rules, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as

the “said Rules”), the Town and Country Planning Department after scrutinizing the said proposals placed

such proposals alongwith its scrutiny reports before the Goa Town and Country Planning Board for its

recommendations/approval/decision;

And whereas, the Goa Town and Country Planning Board approved the said proposals as specified in

column No. 8 of the above Table;

And whereas, notices as required by sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the said Rules were published,—

(i)

vide Notification No. 36/18/39A/Notification(7)/TCP/2024/32 dated 28/10/2024, published in the

Official Gazette, Series III No. 31 dated 01-11-2024 (as regards proposal at Sr. No. 1);

(ii)

vide Notification No. 36/18/39A/Notification(11)/TCP/2024/53 dated 26-11-2024, published in

the Official Gazette, Series III No. 35 dated 28-11-2024 (as regards proposals at Sr. Nos. 2, 3, 4,

5, 6, 7, 8 & 9);

(iii)

vide Notification No. 36/18/39A/Notification(20)/TCP/2025/98 dated 30-04-2025, published in

the Official Gazette, Series III No. 05 dated 02-05-2025 (as regards proposal at Sr. No. 10);

(iv)

vide Notification No. 36/18/39A/Notification(23)/TCP/2025/236 dated 18-06-2025, published in

the Official Gazette, Series II No. 12 dated 19-06-2025 (as regards proposals at Sr. Nos. 11 & 12);

(v)

vide Notification No. 36/18/39A/Notification(10)/TCP/2024/52 dated 19-11-2024, published in

the Official Gazette, Series III No. 34 dated 21-11-2024 (as regards proposal at Sr. No. 13);

(vi)

vide Notification No. 36/18/39A/Notification(3R)/TCP/2024/43 dated 12/11/2024, published in

the Official Gazette, Series III No. 33 dated 14-11-2024 (as regards proposals at Sr. Nos. 14, 15 &

16); and suggestions were invited from the public within a period of thirty days from the date of

publication to the said Notifications in the Official Gazette.

And whereas, suggestions received from public were placed before the Goa Town and Country

Planning Board in terms of sub-rules (3) of Rule 4 for its recommendation/approval and the Goa Town and

Country Planning Board after due consideration of the suggestions received from the public recommended

the proposals for change of zone as regards to Sr. No. 1 in its meeting 210^th Meeting held on 30-12-2024, Sr.

No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15 & 16 in its 211^th meeting held on 15-01-2025, Sr. No. 10 in its 216^th Meeting

held on 13-06-2025, Sr. No. 11 & 12 in its 217^th Meeting held on 29-07-2025 and Sr. No. 13 in its 213^th

Meeting held on 07-03-2025 and directed to take further action as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the said

Rules;

And whereas, as required by sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the said Rules, the recommendation/

approval/decision of the Goa Town and Country Planning Board along with the said proposals were placed

before the Government for its decision and the Government has approved the same;

Now, therefore, in view of the recommendation of the Goa Town and Country Planning Board being

approved by the Government and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 39A of the Goa Town and

Country Planning Act, 1974 (Act 21 of 1975) read with sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 of the Goa Town and Country

Planning (Change of zone of land in the Regional Plan or the Outline Development Plan) Rules, 2024, the

Regional Plan and the Outline Development Plan is hereby altered and modified as specified in column No.

(8) of above Table and as directed by the Government for carrying out change of zone of land in respect of

the plots of land as specified in detail in column Nos. (2) to (7) of above Table.

780

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

The alteration and modification of the Regional Plan and the Outline Development Plan as notified in

this Notification shall be subject to the outcome of the PIL Writ Petition Nos. 53 of 2024 and 54 of 2024

which are pending final disposal before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa.

Vertika Dagur, Chief Town Planner (Planning).

Panaji.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Urban Development

Directorate of Municipal Administration/Urban Development

Notification

The Government has constituted a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) in the name and style of Imagine

Panaji Smart City Development Limited (IPSCDL) for operationalizing the Smart City Projects with Board

of Directors (BoD) vide Notification No. 10/671/2015-DMA/658 dated 9^th June, 2016.

The Department of Urban Development/Directorate of Municipal Administration has to issue

notifications reconstituting the board in respect of ex-officio Members of the Board as and when there is a

change of the incumbents holding the posts and for the other members as per Government order from time

to time.

Therefore, the Government of Goa hereby re-constitutes the Board of IPSCDL with ex officio members

as per designation given in column [2] in Table A below and Non ex officio members as given in Table B

below:

TABLE A

Sr.

No.

Designation

Name

IPSCDL

Board

Designation

Chief Secretary, Government of Goa

Dr. V. Candavelou, IAS

Chairman

Secretary (Finance), Government of Goa

Dr. V. Candavelou, IAS

Director

Secretary (Urban Development), Government of Goa

Shri. Yetindra M. Maralkar, IAS

Director

Managing Director & CEO, IPSCDL

Shri. Sandip Jacques, IAS

Director

Collector, North Goa

Shri. Ankit Yadav, IAS

Director

Director/ex officio Joint Secretary (Urban Development),

Government of Goa

Shri Brijesh Manerkar

Director

Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Panaji

Shri Clen Madeira

Director

Principal Chief Engineer, PWD, Government of Goa

Shri Uttam Parsekar

Director

10/671/2015-DMA/2045

Date : 08-Sep-2025

781

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

TABLE B

Sr.

No.

Name

IPSCDL Board Designation

Shri. Sandip Jacques, IAS

Managing Director &

CEO, IPSCDL

Shri Subhash Chander, US IFD, Government of India

Director

Shri Atanasio Monserrate, Minister for Revenue, Labour & Waste Mangement.

Director

Shri Rohit Joe Monserrate, Mayor, Corporation of the City of Panaji

Director

This is issued in supersession of all earlier Notifications issued in this regard.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Shri Brijesh Manerkar, Director of Municipal Administration/Urban Development, ex officio Joint

Secretary.

Panaji.

782

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 24

11TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published by the Director, Printing & Stationary,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

Price—Rs. 29.00

PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—191/80-9/2025.