Goa Gazette, No. 2526-27, 03 October 2025

click here for IIIF manifest

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

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Panaji, ⁰³rd October, ²⁰²⁵ (Asvina ¹¹, ¹⁹⁴⁷) SERIES II No. 27

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Note: There is one Supplement and four Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 26 dated 25-09-2025 as

follows:-

1. Supplement dated 25-9-2025 from pages 841 to 918 regarding Report from Goa Legislature Secretariat.

2. Extraordinary dated 25-9-2025 from pages 919 to 920 regarding Notification from Department of Finance.

3. Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 25-9-2025 from pages 921 to 922 regarding Notification from Goa Legislature Secretariat.

4. Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 25-9-2025 from pages 923 to 924 regarding Notification from Department of Tourism.

5. Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 01-10-2025 from pages 925 to 926 regarding Notification from Department of Home.

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies

Notification

5-2059-2024/ARSZ/HSG/1184 Date : 12-Aug-2024 In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, "Costas Montage Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Benaulim, Salcete-Goa" is registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2024250112.

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

Margao.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

"Costas Montage Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Benaulim, Salcete-Goa" has been registered on 12-08-2024 and its bears registration code symbol No. RCSSZ2024250112 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 Societies Rules, 2003.

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

Margao.

____________

Notification

5-2062-2024/ARSZ/HSG/1255 Date : 16-Aug-2024 In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, "Supreme Colmorod County Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited", Colmorod, Navelim, Salcete-Goa is registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2024250113.

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

Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected] 927OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 27 03RD OCTOBER, 2025

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

"Supreme Colmorod County Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited", Colmorod, Navelim, Salcete-Goa has been registered on 16/08/2024 and its bears registration code symbol No. RCSSZ2024250113 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 Societies Rules, 2003.

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

Margao.

_____________

Notification

5-2061-2024/ARSZ/HSG/1306 Date : 22-Aug-2024 In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, "Wincons Emerald Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Olly Mordy, Dramapur, Salcete Goa" is registered under code symbol No. - RCSSZ2024250114.

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

Margao.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

"Wincons Emerald Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Olly Mordy, Dramapur, Salcete Goa" has been registered on 22/08/2024 and its bears registration code symbol No. RCSSZ2024250114 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 Societies Rules, 2003.

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

Margao.

_________

Notification

. Date : 03-Jul-2025 In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, "Vishwast Krushi Co-operative Multipurpose Primary Agriculture Credit Society Ltd.", H. No. 700, Priol, Mardol, Ponda, Goa-Goa is registered under code symbol No.- RCSPZ2025260068.

Pankaj V. Marathe, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Ponda Zone.

Ponda.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

"Vishwast Krushi Co-operative Multipurpose Primary Agriculture Credit Society Ltd.", H. No. 700, Priol, Mardol, Ponda, Goa-Goa has been registered on 03/07/2025 and its bears registration code symbol No. RCSPZ2025260068 and its classified as Resource Society under sub-classification No. 10-(c)-Service Resource Society in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Rules, 2003.

Pankaj V. Marathe, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Ponda Zone.

Ponda.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Home

Home-General Division

Notification

28/01/2025-HD(G)/2510 Date : 26-Sep-2025 In exercise of the powers conferred by ssub-section (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Central Act 46 of 2023) and in supersession of all earlier Notifications issued to this regard, the Government of Goa hereby appoints the Officers specified in column (1) of table below as928 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 27 03RD OCTOBER, 2025 District Magistrates, Additional District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Magistrates and Executive Magistrates as mentioned in corresponding entry in column (2) of said table with jurisdiction as specified in column (3) of said table, with immediate effect.

I. NORTH GOA DISTRICT

II. SOUTH GOA DISTRICT

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

Manthan Manoj Naik, Under Secretary (Home-II).

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Labour

Order

28/45/2025-LAB/574 Date : 25-Sep-2025 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 deduction of wages w. e. f. 03-08-2023 to 17-08-2023 of Shri Dattaram S. Shetye, Junior Operator- Packing before the management of M/s. Cipla, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete-Goa?

(2) If answer to issue No. (1) above is affirmative then whether Shri Dattaram S. Shetye, Junior Operator- Packing 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 deduction of wages w. e. f. 03-08-2023 to 17/08/2023 of Shri Dattaram S. Shetye, Junior Operator-Packing is legal and justified?

(4) If answer to issue No. (3) above is in negative, then what relief the workman is entitled to?

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

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

Porvorim.

____________

Notification

28/02/2025-LAB/Part-I/567 Date : 22-Sep-2025 The following Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on 04/09/2025 in Case Ref. No. IT/78/1996 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/78/1996

… Workman/Party I Shri Dayanand K. Powar, Rep. by the President, Goa MRF Employees Union, Saidham Dhavalimol, Ponda-Goa.

V/s

M/s M.R.F. Limited, Tisk,Usgao, Ponda-Goa.

… Employer/Party II

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

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

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 4th day of the month of September of the year 2025)

By order dated 04th December, 1996 bearing No. IRM/CON/PONDA/(100)/96/12372, 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), has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. MRF Limited, Ponda-Goa, in terminating the services of Shri Dayanand K. Powar, with effect from 02/08/1996, is legal and justified?

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

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered as IT/78/1996 and registered A/D notices were issued to both the Parties. Pursuant to service of notice, Party I filed his Claim Statement at Exhibit 3.

3. In his Claim Statement the Party I stated that he was suspended pending enquiry vide letter dated 12/02/1996 and the said letter was silent as to the charges leveled against him and the reason necessitating suspension. The Party I stated that thereafter by letter dated 15/02/1996, he was issued a charge sheet which was illegal and untenable at law. It was based totally on concocted charges solely to victimize him for his union activities and his continued allegiance to the Goa MRF Employees' Union. It is submitted at this juncture that the allegations leveled against him were based on conjecture and surmises.

4. The Party I stated that he sent his reply dated 22/02/1996 to the charge-sheet denying the charges therein and that the enquiry proceeded with pursuant to notice of enquiry dated 24/02/1996. The Party I stated that he was not given an opportunity let alone reasonable opportunity to defend himself at the enquiry and the enquiry was conducted without following the principles of natural justice.

5. The Party I stated that the Enquiry was conducted in English inspite of the fact that the Party I/workman not being sufficiently literate and not well versed with the English language and that it wasconducted in undue haste. The list of management witnesses were not provided to the Party I/Workman nor were the documents relied upon by the company given to him in advance for him to sufficiently prepare his defence.

6. The Party I stated that Subsistence Allowance admissible under the law was not paid to him and that the Findings of the Enquiry Officer were not based on correct appreciation either of law or of the facts on record. Thereafter, by letter dated 02/08/1996, the Party II served the Order of Dismissal without waiting for a reply to the show cause notice.

7. The Party I states that he was therefore further intentionally denied the opportunity of giving a detailed reply to the show cause notice malafidely and against the principles of natural justice. It is stated that the termination of the Party I/Workman has been resorted by the company to victimize the said workman for his legitimate trade union activities. It is stated that the termination/dismissal of the Party I/Workman in the circumstances above also tantamount to act of unfair labour practices under items 5 (a), (b), (d), (f) & (g) as well as items 13 and 14 of the Fifth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, prayed that the Party I/Mr. Dayanand Powar be reinstated in services from 02/08/1996 with full backwages and continuity in services.

8. In the Written Statement at Exhibit 4 filed by the Party II it is submitted that on 12/02/1996 during the first shift in Tyre Building Department, It was noticed by the Production Supervisor on duty, that around 10 a. m., M/C No. 17 on which Mr. Dayanand Powar was working, in building 10.20 SLXN 6 Tyres, was not working properly. It was further observed by Mr. Digambar Naik, the Supervisor, that the drum was not turning when Mr. Powar was tapping the foot-switch and came to the M/C No. 17 and enquired with Powar what was wrong with the M/C machine to which Mr. Powar could not answer satisfactorily. It is further alleged that when the Supervisor checked M/C No. 17, he noticed that a bolt was inserted between the inner head belt setting ring spider and a bush holder. When the Supervisor asked Mr. Powar as to how the bolt came between the spider and the bush ring, Mr. Powar had no answer. It was alleged that Mr. Powar had deliberately inserted the bolt between the BSR spider and bush ring after stitching the second band turned down and tried to apply the gum strip by rotating the drum in a deliberate attempt to damage and sabotage the M/C which it is alleged would have taken place if it had not been noticed by the Supervisor.

9. The Party II submitted that the Party I was suspended immediately by letter dated 12/02/1996 and was issued a charge-sheet dated 15/02/1996 for the grave misconducts committed by the Party I/Workman under the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the Company under Clause-21 of Item No. IV and LII which are spelt out as under:-

Item No. IV: Causing damage to the work in process or to any property of the Company either willfully or through negligence and

Item LII: Any act supervise of discipline.

10. The Party II submitted that the Party I denied these charges vide his letter dated 22/02/1996 and alleged in his reply that there was no justification for his suspension and that he is being victimized for his union activities. In view of this denial enquiry was instituted.

11. The Party II submitted that Mr. Micheal Gracious was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by Appointment Letter dated 26/02/1996 and the enquiry commenced on 14/03/1996 and ended on 25/06/1996. The management was represented by Mr. T. M. Kurian and subsequently on 21/05/1996, Mr. Francis Menezes took over. The Party I/Workman was represented by a union office bearer/co-worker, Mr. Rohidas Naik. The Party I examined their witnesses in support of the charge namely 1) Mr. T.M. Kurian 2) Mr. Digambar Naik 3) Mr. Ramnath Gadekarand 4) Mr. R.S. Amonkar. The witnesses of the Management were cross-examined by co-worker of CSW and the CSW was cross-examined by the Management representative.

12. The Party II further submitted that after perusing the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings dated 05/07/1996 holding the Party I guilty of the charges leveled against him. The Management concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding the Party I guilty of the charges and issued show-cause as to why his services should not be terminated. The Management did not find the reply of the Party I satisfactory and accordingly by letter dated 02/08/1996 dismissed Party I/Workman from the service.

13. The Party II further 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 Enquiry Officer gave a reasoned findings on the basis of which any prudent Officer would come to the conclusion that the Party I/Workman was guilty of the charges leveled against him. The Party II submitted that the dismissal of the Party I was pursuant to the charge-sheet and properly conducted enquiry by an impartial Enquiry Officer who has considered all the evidence on record and had submitted his reasoned findings. The Party II thereafter submitted that the dismissal of Party I was legal and justified.

14. On completion of the pleadings, the following Issues were framed at Exhibit 5 by this Tribunal which reads as under:

ISSUES

1. Whether the Party I proves that domestic enquiry held against him is not 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 termination of his services by the Party II w. e. f. 02/08/96 is illegal and unjustified and by way of unfair labour practice?

4. Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?

5. What Award?

15. From the issues framed hereinabove, Issue No. 1 and 2 had been taken up to be tried as preliminary issues and accordingly Order dated 18/03/2025 has been passed by this Tribunal holding Issue No.1 in the negative and the Issue No. 2 in the affirmative. Party I thereafter led evidence in respect of remaining Issue No. 3 and 4 and my findings to the same with reasons are as follows:

Issue No. 3 & 4 : In the Negative

Issue No. 5 : As per Final Order

REASONS 19. Issue No. 3 and 4: It is a matter of record that, this Tribunal has passed an order dated 18-03-2025 on preliminary issue No. 1 and 2. The Issue No. 1 has been held in negative by giving a finding that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry in consonance with the principles of natural justice, hence the issue was answered against the Applicant/Workman in negative holding that the enquiry was held to be fair and proper. By the said order, dated 18-03-2025 this Tribunal was pleased to answer the Issue No. 2 in the affirmative while concluding that the Enquiry Officer had analysed the evidence on record in depth and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on the acceptable evidence.

20. After passing of 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 and 4. However, both the parties chose not to lead any further evidence and the matter proceeded to hear final arguments on merits on all the remaining issues.

21. This Tribunal while deciding the Issue No. 1 against the Workman/Party I had held that the workman could not place anything on record to substantiate his claim that the enquiry conducted against him was not fair and proper and that the same was conducted by violating the principles of natural justice as such the Issue No. 1 was answered in the negative thereby dismissing the case of Party I/Workman about the alleged victimization by the Employer/Party II.

22. That while deciding Issue No. 2 in the affirmative, in favour of the management, this Tribunal held that 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 misconduct alleged to have been conducted by him were false and had been leveled with a sole intent to victimize him and therefore illegal, improper, bad in law, malafide and unjustified and the Management could prove the same by way of acceptable evidence.

23. The evidence in the domestic enquiry held in respect of the charge-sheet issued to the Party I/Workman revealed that the Party I was provided with sufficient opportunity to be assisted by the co-worker who is the office bearer of the Union in view of clause-22 (c) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company which stated that in the enquiry the Workman shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for defending his action by refuting the charges made against him with the assistance of fellow workman of the Department, if he so desires. Accordingly, Mr. Rohidas Naik defended the Party I in the enquiry proceeding. On behalf of the Party II, Mr. T. M. Kurien represented the Management. The inquiry further reveals that the Party II examined Mr. Digambar Naik as MW1, Mr. Ramnath Gadekar as MW2 and Mr. R. S. Amonkar as MW3 in support of the charges levelled in the charge-sheet and the Party I/Workman examined himself in defence as well as examined Mr. Bruno Mascarenhas as his witness in support of his defence.

24. In the domestic enquiry the Party I was given fair opportunity to defend him by the office bearer of the Union. All the management witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined by the representative of the Party I in respect of the alleged charge levelled against the Party I/Workman.

25. As regards to the allegation of less subsistence allowance paid to the Workman, the Tribunal in the said Order held that the Party I/Workman admitted he obtaining loan of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) from the Credit Society and that prior to his suspension, certain amount was being deducted from his salary for repayment of loan from the said Society. He further admitted that he did not write any letter intimating Party II that the Subsistence Allowance paid to him was insufficient for his maintenance. On the other hand, the management witness, Shri Sharad Chodnekar when examined before the Tribunal had given the details of the charge-sheet, the inquiry proceeding conducted in respect of the said charge-sheet, the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and the Dismissal Order passed against the Party I/Workman pursuance to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He has further stated that the Order dated 12/02/1996 was signed by Shri S. B. Naik, Plant Industry Manager and that the show-cause notice and the Dismissal Order being signed by Shri. E. M. Mathai, both the Officers according the MW1 were competent to sign the documents named above. He further stated that the Subsistence Allowance was paid to the Party I in terms of settlement dated 20/11/1991 and in accordance with the Certified Standing Orders.

26. The enquiry reveals that the Party I/Workman was given fair opportunity pursuance to which the witnesses on the either side were cross-examined by the Representative of the Management as well as by the Representative of the Workman. The enquiry was concluded by taking on record all the relevant and material evidence adduced by the Management witnesses as well as by the witnesses of the Party I/Workman. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer gave its findings. Absolutely no evidence has been adduced to show that the enquiry was without following the principles of natural justice or that the same was against the Certified Standing Orders of the Applicant.

27. In the Case of Cholan Roadways Ltd vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam reported in 2005 (I) CLR 524, it was held that :"There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the principle of natural justice are required to be complied with in a domestic enquiry. It is, however, well-known that the said principle cannot be stretched too far nor can be applied in a vacuum. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal while considering an application for grant of approval has succinctly been stated by this Court in Martin Burn Ltd. V/s R. N. Banerjee (AIR 1958 SC 79). While exercising jurisdiction under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act, the Industrial Tribunal is required to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out as regard the validity or otherwise of the domestic enquiry held against the delinquent; keeping in view the fact that if the permission or approval is granted, the order of discharge or dismissal which may be passed against the delinquent employee would be liable to be challenged in an appropriate proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal in terms of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. In Martin Burn's case (supra) this court stated: "A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence. It may be that the Tribunal considering this question may itself have arrived at a different conclusion. It has, however, not to substitute its own judgment for the judgment in question. It has only got to consider whether the view taken is a possible view on the evidence on the record".

28. The Tribunal further held that on scrutiny, the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer vis-a-vis the evidence led by both the Parties, it is seen that a due procedure was followed by the Party II in the said domestic enquiry that was held pursuance to issuance of charge-sheet to Party I/Workman and he was also given opportunity to defend himself in the said proceeding. If one considers the chain of events, then one has to accept that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down under the law by giving a fair opportunity to the Party I/Workman to defend himself in the matter. Hence, the Issue No.1 stands answered in the negative.

29. In the domestic Enquiry, the management witness Shri Digambar Naik (MW1), the Production Supervisor stated that on 12/02/1996 during the first shift in Tyre Building Department, while on duty he noticed that around 10 a. m., M/C No. 17 on which Mr. Dayanand Powar was working, in building 10.20 SLXN 6 Tyres were not working properly. It was further observed by Mr. Digambar Naik, the Supervisor, that the drum was not turning, when Mr. Powar was tapping the foots switch and came to the M/C No. 17 and enquired with Powar what was wrong with the M/C machine to which Mr. Powar could not answer satisfactorily, he further stated that when the Supervisor checked M/C No. 17, he noticed that a bolt was935 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 27 03RD OCTOBER, 2025 inserted between the inner head belt setting ring spider and a brush holder. When the Supervisor asked Mr. Powar as how the bolt came between the spider and the bush ring Mr. Powar had no answer. It was alleged that Mr. Powar has deliberately inserted the bolt between the BSR spider and bush ring after stitching the second band turned down and tried to apply the gum strip by rotating the drum in a deliberate attempt to damage and sabotage the M/C which it is alleged would have taken place if it had not been noticed by the supervisor.29. MW1 thereafter removed bolt to make the machine free and gave it to Mr. Ramnath Gadekar and thereafter reported the matter to Mr. Amonkar. MW1 identified the sketch showing the position of the bolt that was found between the inner BSR and the bush according to MW1 the said sketch was dawn by Mr. Lawrence, Officer in Production Department upon being instructed by MW1. MW1 further maintained his statement that the Party I was working alone on machine No.17. The statement of MW1 has been corrugated and supported by the management representative Shri T. M. Kurien as well other Management witnesses.

30. MW2, Shri Ramnath Govekar stated that on the day of incident, when he was working on machine No. 20, he was called by Mr. Digambar Naik to Machine No. 17 on which machine Party I was working. MW2 called Mr. Bruno Mascarenhas who was working on machine No. 3 and they both went to machine No. 17 whereby Mr. Digambar Naik showed them the bolt that was inserted between the BSR Spider and the Bush, Digambar told them that the said bolt was inserted as an premeditated act of sabotage and that he was going to inform the same to his superiors. This statement made by MW1 and MW2 in respect of the alleged incident collaborates to a great extent without there being much variation of the facts stated by both the witnesses. Both the witnesses were cross-examined at length on all detailed aspect of the alleged incident of sabotage to the machine N. 17 by Party I.

31. The CSW could not give any satisfactory answer when he was grilled by the management representative on the matter of him not producing the requisite number of tyres and as such the contention of the management that the CSW since was engaged in sabotaging machine No. 17, that is the reason he could not build requisite number of tyres despite there being no other breakdown in the machine after rectifying the electrical issue.

32. The co-worker, Mr. Bruno Mascarenhas, whom CSW examined as his witness in his defence though tried to defend CSW in denying his knowledge about alleged incident of sabotage of the machine by the CSW, however, admitted he having accompanied CSW to the Cabin of the Manager and further stated that no workman can go to the cabin of the Manager without being accompanied by the union leader. This shows that this witness tried to cover-up the incident by refusing to answer most of the questions asked in the cross- examination and denied he being called by the Supervisor to machine No. 17, thus, the testimony of the defence witness Mr. Bruno Mascaren has is not fruitful to either of the Parties as the same is not free from clouds of doubts.

33. The management in support of them having proved the act of sabotaging by the Party I/Workman has relied upon in the case of Motiur Rahman V/s The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Patna and others 1998 Lab IC2036 C. W. J. C. No. 1539 of 1987 "Held, it was apparent that sufficient opportunity was given to Petitioner to represent his case before domestic enquiry-He had himself examined as a witness but refused to cross examined witness examined on behalf of management and as such it could not be said that proper opportunity was not given to him to cross examine witnesses. Charge of sabotage was a major charge had been proved against Petitioner which was alone sufficient to terminate services of Petitioner."

34. Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) V/s A.T. Mane 2005(25)AIC319 Civil Appeal No. 1720 of 2002 "Once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion normally it is not open to the appellate tribunal and courts to substitute their subjective opinion in the place of the one arrived at by domestic Tribunal."

35. State Bank of India and ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey 2013(2)ABR787 Civil appeal No. 263 of 2013 "In this case, the Inquiring Authority had elaborately considered the charges leveled against the charged officer and also the materials produced by the bank because some evidence is necessary to establish the charges. In some cases, proof may only be documentary and in some cases oral."

36. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay and ors. Vs. Vijay Ratanrao Surve and Ors. 2000(1)ALLMR199 "Once it is revealed that there was some evidence before the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry was conducted fairly, following the principle of natural justice, it cannot be said that the findings are bad in law."936 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 27 03RD OCTOBER, 2025 37. It was further held that sufficient opportunity was given to the Workman to contradict the documents reported in support of the alleged reduction in production of tyres. However, the workman did not discard the worksheet provided during the enquiry nor could give any satisfactory justification for not building sufficient number of tyres till the time he was asked to stop work. As such the findings given by the Enquiry Officer about the reduction of production by the Party I/Workman on he being engaged in the act of sabotage of the machine cannot be completely overlooked. The Enquiry Officer therefore proceeded to hold the Party I/Workman guilty of the charges leveled in the charge-sheet based on the legal and acceptable evidence adduced by the Management witnesses. 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."

38. The Tribunal while deciding the Issue No. 2 in favour of the Management held that the Party II 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 and the findings given by the Enquiry Officer are based on the legally acceptable evidence on record.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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 the937 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 27 03RD OCTOBER, 2025 Labour Court and uphold the order of the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent- workman from service.

42. 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.

43. 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 there was no such incident of sabotage to the Machine No.17 by Party I.

44. The evidence on record reveals that the Management through their witnesses has produced sufficient evidence in support of the alleged incident of the Party I/Workman having involved in sabotage of Machine No.17.

45. Therefore, considering the overall evidence on record as well as considering the acts of misconduct as defined in the Certified Standing, oupled with the ratio laid down 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 terminating the services of Shri Dayanand K. Powarw.e.f. 02/08/1996 is illegal and unjustified. As such, Party I/Workman is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the Statement of Claim and for the reasons stated hereinabove the Issue No. 3 and 4 taken together for discussion stands answered in the negative.

Hence the Order:

ORDER

(i) The action of management of M/s. MRF Ltd., Usgao, Ponda in terminating the services of Shri Dayanand K. Powar w. e. f. 02/08/1996 is legal and justified.

(ii) The Party I/Workman, Mr. Dayanand K. Powar is 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 Legal Metrology

Office of the Secretary (Legal Metrology)

Order

Secy(LM)/Comm./2025/68 Date : 25-Sep-2025 In pursuance of Government Notification No. 1/4/2022-GAD-II (Part-II)/3696 dated 27-8-2025, the Government is pleased to reconstitute the Petroleum Stakeholders Committee to identify, discuss, suggest measures to resolve various issues faced by Petroleum companies, dealers and other stakeholders in the State938 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 27 03RD OCTOBER, 2025 of Goa and to adopt best practices and modern techniques by the petroleum sector in the interest of the consumer.

The reconstituted committee is as follows:

 1.  Hon'ble Minister for Legal Metrology, Goa                          —   Chairman.
 2.  Secretary, Legal Metrology, Goa                                    —   Vice Chairman.
 3.  Controller, Legal Metrology, Goa                                   —   Convener.
 4.  Director, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Goa                 —   Member.
 5.  State Level Co-ordinator for Petroleum Companies, Goa              —   Member.
 6.  Divisional Retail Head, IOCL, Goa                                  —   Member.
 7.  Territory Manager, BPCL, Goa                                       —   Member.
 8.  Senior Regional Manager, HPCL, Goa                                 — Member.
 9.  President, Goa Petrol Dealers Association                          —   Member.
10.  Vice President, Goa Petrol Dealers Association (BPCL)              —   Member.
11.  Vice President, Goa Petrol Dealers Association (HPCL)              —   Member.
12.  Vice President, Goa Petrol Dealers Association (IOCL)              —   Member.
13.  Secretary, Goa Petrol Dealers Association                          —   Member.

The reconstituted committee shall convene meetings every three months.

This order supersedes all previous orders issued in this matter, including order No. Sec (LM)/Comm./2023/702/1723 dated 24-07-2023 and Order No. 20/S(LM) Petroleum Stakeholders Comm./Order/2024/36 dated 04-01-2024.

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

Sanjiv M. Gadkar, IAS, Secretary (Legal Metrology)/Vice Chairman, Petroleum Stakeholders Committee.

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Personnel

Corrigendum

2/1/2001-PER(Vol.V)/2987 Date : 29-Sep-2025 Read:- Order No. 2/1/2001-PER (Vol.V)/2254 dated 18-07-2025.

In the Government Order read at preamble, the last para shall be substituted to read as under:-

"Shri Santosh Kundaikar shall be paid last drawn salary alongwith fixed travelling allowance of Rs. 3000/- per month".

Rest of the content remains unchanged.

Durga Kinlekar, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim.

Department of Planning

Directorate of Planning, Statistics and Evaluation

Order

No. DPSE/1/ADMN/Filling-Dy.Dir/2023-24/525 Date : 14-Jun-2024 On recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission, as communicated vide their letter No. COM/II/11/38(1)/2013/89 dated 12-06-2024, the Government is pleased to promote the following Statistical Officers of (Group B Gazetted) in the pay scale of Level 7 (44900-142400) of the Common Statistical Cadre to the post of Dy. Director (Group A Gazetted) in the pay scale of Level 10 (56100-177500) as per VIIth Pay Commission on regular basis with immediate effect and posted in the Departments shown against their names:

1. The Officers will be on probation for a period of two years from their date of joining.

2. The Officers shall exercise their option to fix pay in terms of F. R. 22(I)(a)(1) within one month from the date of promotion, if desire/applicable.

3. This issues with the Government approval vide U. O. No. 1253/F dated 13-06-2024.

4. The Officers are required to submit a copy of the joining report to this Department for Office record.

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

Vijay B. Saxena, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Planning).

Porvorim.

___________

Order

No. DPSE/1/ADMN/Prom. of S.O/2023-24/1212 Date : 29-Aug-2024 On recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission, as communicated vide their letter No. COM/II/11/38(2)/2020/147 dated 25-07-2024, Government is pleased to promote the following Research Assistants of the Common Statistical Cadre to the post of Statistical Officer (Group 'B' Gazetted) in the pay scale of Level 7 (44900-142400) as per VIIth Pay Commission on regular basis with immediate effect.

1. Additional charge as Statistical Officer held by Shri Liladhar B. Dessai, Dy. Director for 02 days at Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Panaji, Goa stands withdrawn.

2. Additional charge for 02 days held by Shri Thanu N. Zalmi, Statistical Officer at Directorate of Tourism, Panaji-Goa, stands withdrawn.

3. The Officers shall exercise their option to fix pay in terms of F. R. 22(I)(a)(1) within one month from the date of promotion, if desire/applicable.

4. The Officers will be on probation for a period of 02 years from the date of joining. During probation period, the Officer shall be required to undergo such training or pass such examination as prescribed by the Controlling Authority for satisfactory completion of probation. The probation period shall be liable to be extended till the time the aforesaid condition is not fulfilled by the Officer.

5. The Officers promoted shall be relieved immediately in order to facilitate their joining at their respective place of new posting.

6. The Officers are required to submit a copy of the joining report to this Department for office record.

This issues with the Government approval vide U. O. 3328/F dated 22-08-2024.

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

Vijay B. Saxena, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Planning).

Porvorim.

____________

Order

No. DPSE/1/ADMN/Prom.of RA/2023-24/1658 Date : 25-Oct-2024 On recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission, as communicated vide their letter No. COM/II/11/38(1)/2020/146 dated 25-07-2024, Government is pleased to promote the following Statistical Assistants of the Common Statistical Cadre to the post of Research Assistant in Group 'B' Gazetted in the pay scale of Level 6 (35400-112400) as per VIIth Pay Commission with immediate effect.

1. The Officials from Sr. No. 1 to 8 are promoted on regular basis and will be on probation for a period of 02 years from the date of their joining.

2. The Official at Sr. No. 9 will be on Officiating basis against the ST vacancy till eligible ST Official is found by the Department and will not be on probation period.

3. The Officials at Sr. No. 3 & Sr. No. 6 shall be initially for a period of one year as per the standard terms and conditions of deputation contained in O.M. No. 13/4/74-PER dated 20-11-2013 and O.M. No. 13/1/2016-PER/1494 dated 27/05/2019 issued by Personnel Department and as amended from time to time.

4. Additional charge for 02 days held by Smt. Sheetal P. Naik, Research Assistant at Directorate of Panchayat, Panaji-Goa, stands withdrawn.

5. Additional charge for 02 days held by Shri Sumant Rodrigues, Research Assistant, at Office of the Collector, North Goa District, Panaji-Goa stands withdrawn.

6. Additional charge for 02 days held by Shri Shailesh K. Shetgaonkar, Statistical Assistant, at Women & Child Development, Block Office, Bardez, Goa stands withdrawn.

7. The Officials shall exercise their option to fix pay in terms of F. R. 22(I)(a)(1) within one month from the date of promotion, if desire/applicable.

8. The Officials are required to submit a copy of the joining report to this Department for office record.

9. The Officials promoted shall be relieved immediately in order to facilitate their joining at their respective place of new posting.

This issues with the approval of the Government vide U. O. 4969/F dated 10-10-2024.

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

Vijay B. Saxena, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Planning).

Porvorim.

____________

Order

No. DPSE/I/ADMN/Filling-Dy.Dir/2023-24/1373 Date : 29-Jul-2025 On recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission, as communicated vide their letter No. COM/II/11/38(1)/2013/123 dated 15-07-2025, the Government is pleased to promote the following Statistical Officers of (Group B Gazetted) in the pay scale of Level-7 (44900-142400) of the Common Statistical Cadre to the post of Dy. Director (Group A Gazetted) in the pay scale of Level-10 (56100-177500) as per VIIth Pay Commission on regular basis with immediate effect and posted in the Departments shown against their names:

1. The Officers will be on probation for a period of two years from their date of joining.

2. The Officers shall exercise their option to fix pay in terms of F. R. 22(I)(a)(1) within one month from the date of promotion, if desire/applicable.

3. This issues with the Government approval vide U. O. No. 3917/F dated 22-7-2025.

4. The Officers are required to submit a copy of the joining report to this Department for office record.

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

Vijay B. Saxena, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Planning).

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Public Health

Order

4/2/2021-II/PHD/1760 Date : 11-Aug-2025 On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/I/5/30(4)/2023/445 dated 06/03/2025, Government is pleased to appoint Shri. Mohit Kumar Pandey to the post of Associate Professor in Medical Imaging Technology (Group 'A' Gazetted) in Allied Health Science Courses in Goa Medical College and Hospital, Bambolim-Goa in the Pay Matrix under Level 11 in Pay Matrix (Pre-revised: Pay Band-3 Rs. 15600-39100 + Rs. 6600/- G.P.) with immediate effect and as per the terms and condition in the Memorandum cited above.

Shri Mohit Kumar Pandey shall be on probation for a period of two years.

Shri Mohit Kumar Pandey has been declared medically fit by the Medical Board and his character and antecedents have been verified by the District Magistrate, North Goa District, Panaji-Goa at the time of his initial appointment as Lecturer in Medical Imaging Technology, in Allied Health Science Courses in Goa Medical College & Hospital, Bambolim.

The appointment is made against the vacancy occurred due to creation of posts vide Order No. 4/1/2018- II/PHD/1195 dated 14/08/2019 & bifurcated vide Order No. 4/1/2018-II/PHD/Part-I/3383 dated 23/10/2020 for the post of Associate Professor in Medical Imaging Technology, Allied Health Science Courses in Goa Medical College and Hospital, Bambolim-Goa.

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

Sitaram G. Sawal, Under Secretary (Health-I).

Porvorim.

Order

8/1/2003-III/PHD/1896 Date : 02-Sep-2025 Government is pleased to accept the notice of voluntary retirement dated 21-08-2024 tendered by Dr. Shilpa Waikar, Associate Professor and holding the charge of Professor & HOD in Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour, Bambolim under Rule 43 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 and relive her from the post of Associate Professor and the charge of Professor & HOD (Actg) in Psychiatry under Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour, Bambolim w.e.f. 04-11-2024 (a. n.).

This is issued in supersession to the Order No. 8/1/2003-III/PHD/3037dated 04-10-2024 read above.

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

Sitaram G. Sawal, Under Secretary (Health-I).

Porvorim.

___________

Notification

13/11/2018-I/PHD/1092 Date : 22-Aug-2025 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Central Act No. 23 of 1940), the Government of Goa hereby appoints Shri Raju P. Kamat, Junior Scientific Officer (Drugs) of the Food and Drugs Laboratory of the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration, Bambolim, Goa, Government of Goa, to be a Government Analyst, for the whole of the State of Goa, in respect of all classes of drugs and cosmetics, except the drugs as specified at item numbers 1 to 7, 13 and 14 of the Schedule C to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

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.

Sitaram G. Sawal, Under Secretary (Health-II)/Link.

Porvorim.

_________

Notification

38/16/2025//PHD-II/1206 Date : 15-Sep-2025 Government is pleased to constitute a Technical Committee under "the National Program for Palliative Care, 2023", the consisting members mentioned below:-

Technical Committee

The terms of reference of Steering Committee.

i. The meeting of the Technical Committee shall be convened by the Member Secretary by giving clear 7 days notice in writing along with agenda specifying the date, time and venue of the meeting.

ii. The quorum will be 50% member. The presence of the Chairperson, Dy. Chairperson will be essential.

iii. The Technical Committee of Palliative Program shall provide technical expertise required for reviewing and formulation of guidelines, protocols and other knowledge resources required for running the project.

iv. It shall be responsible for monitoring of the program and troubleshooting issues that may arise with the aid and guidance of the Steering Committee.

v. The Technical Committee shall ensure all cadres and paramedics involved in the program are trained and that their knowledge is up-to-date.

vi. The Technical Committee shall conduct periodic review meeting of all stakeholders of Palliative Program conduct supervisory visits.

vii. The Technical Committee shall also be responsible for monitoring and evaluation of partnering agencies under Palliative Program.

viii. It will also be responsible for collecting, compiling and providing necessary approvals required for sharing of relevant data under Palliative Program.

ix. The Technical Committee shall be responsible for planning and carrying out research activities under the project with necessary approvals.

x. The Technical Committee of Palliative Program shall meet 6 monthly or when need arises.

xi. The minutes of the meeting of the Technical Committee will also be communicated to other members of the committee and also to the Steering Committee.

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

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

Porvorim.

____________

Notification

13/47/87-I/PHD/(Part File-II)/1186 Date : 16-Sep-2025 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 33-F of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Central Act 23 of 1940), the Government of Goa hereby appoints Shri. Raju P. Kamat, Junior Scientific Officer (Drugs) of the Food and Drugs Laboratory of the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration, Bambolim, Goa, Government of Goa, as the "Government Analyst" in respect of Ayuverdic, Siddha and Unani Drugs, for the whole State of Goa.

This Notification shall come into force on the date of it's publication in the Official Gazette.

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

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

Porvorim.

Notification

5/10/2010-II/PHD/2062 Date : 25-Sep-2025 Read:- Notification No. 5/10/2010-II/PHD/259 dated 23-01-2024.

In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (Central Act No. 42 of 1994) read with Rule 13 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, and in supersession of the Government Notification No. 5/10/2010-II/PHD/259 dated 23-01-2024, published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 44 dated 01-02-2024, the Government of Goa is pleased to reconstitute the State Level Authorisation Committee consisting of the following Members, namely:-

1. Medical Superintendent, Goa Medical College & Hospital — Chairman.

2. Dr. Olavo Rebeiro — Member.

3. Medical Superintendent, South Goa District Hospital, Margao — Member.

4. Adv. Pallavi J. Mulgaonkar — Member.

5. Dr. Pramod Salgaonkar — Member.

6. Additional Secretary (Health)/Joint Secretary (Health) — Member.

7. Directorate of Health Services or nominee — Member.

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

Sitaram G. Sawal, Under Secretary (Health-I).

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Town and Country Planning

Notification

36/18/39A/Notification(12F)/TCP/2025/525 Date : 01-Oct-2025 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

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(11)/TCP/2024/53 dated 26-11-2024, published in the Official Gazette, Series III No. 35 dated 28-11-2024 (as regards proposal at Sr. No. 1);

(ii) 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. 2);

(iii) 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 proposal at Sr. No. 3);

(iv) vide Notification No. 36/18/39A/Notification(14)/TCP/2024/67 dated 31-12-2024 published in the Official Gazette, Series III No. 40 dated 02-01-2025 (as regards proposal at Sr. No. 4);

(v) vide Notification No. 36/18/39A/Notification(13)/TCP/2024/64 dated 17-12-2024, published in the Official Gazette, Series III No. 38 dated 20-12-2024 (as regards proposal at Sr. No. 5) 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-rule (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 & 2 in its 218th meeting held on 12-09-2025, Sr. No. 3 in its 211th meeting held on 15-01-2025, Sr. No. 4 & 5 in its 215th meeting held on 04-06-2025 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.

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 Transport

Directorate of Transport

Notification

No. 5/9/90-TPT/2024/Part file/2554 Date : 23-Sep-2025 In pursuance of Clause (xii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1974, the Government of Goa is pleased to notify that the Limitless Goa, 4th flr., Block 2, Heera Bldg., Nr. Loyola High School, Margao, Salcette, South Goa, and all the Units/bodies of the said Society functioning as a charitable institution for the purpose of the said Rule.

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

P. Pravimal Abhishek, IAS, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary (Tpt.).

Panaji.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published by the Director, Printing & Stationary,

Government Printing Press, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.