JAYPAL M BIDARALLI Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Manish Salkar, learned Government Advocate for the Respondents.

(2.) The challenge in this Petition is to the Order dated 17.08.2009 by the Respondents which imposes a penalty of withholding of one increment of pay of the Petitioner for a period of three years. The Order very clearly states that this penalty will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

(3.) Mr. Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that though witnesses were examined in the course of the disciplinary proceedings, no opportunity of cross-examination was granted to the Petitioner. He submits that the charge of accepting illegal gratification has not been proved even from the statements of the said witnesses. He submits that monies were accepted by the Petitioner only in order to facilitate the parties, who were quite old, and had difficulties in depositing the amounts in the Government Treasury. He submits that the complaints are stereotype and at the instigation of the Sarpanch of the concerned Village Panchayat.