PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa quashed and set aside suspension of Bertha D’Mello e Daniel, Assistant Registrar (Legal) in Goa University and ordered that she be reinstated forthwith with all consequential benefits.
D’Mello was suspended by the Vice Chancellor by an order dated April 25, 2023, pending disciplinary proceedings on the eve of her candidature being considered for direct recruitment and promotion as Deputy Registrar, Goa University, based primarily on stale charges, some of which do not constitute misconduct. The petitioner alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and pointed out that the decision making process was grossly unfair and arbitrary.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
D’Mello was appointed as Assistant Registrar (Legal) in Goa University on December 16, 2005 and was confirmed as Assistant Registrar (Legal) effective from May 26, 2008. Though she was entitled to senior scale effective from 2013, the same was not granted to her because she was yet to complete training programmes for the officers. She appealed to the Chancellor by pointing out that it was the responsibility of the University to conduct or facilitate the training programmes for officers, and the University, having failed to discharge this duty, could not deny her senior scale effective from 2013.
After she applied for the said post dated February 25, 2023, she was called to appear before the three-member High-Level Committee for disciplinary proceedings following a letter addressed to the Chancellor/Governor in March 2018 alleging corruption issues about certain officers/staff of Goa University. In the said complaint, it was also stated that the petitioner was enjoying leisure time and that she is one of the least working officers in the University.
The Court also quashed the impugned charge memorandum dated May 25, 2023 issued against D’Mello and opined that there was absolutely no justification to place her under suspension. The Court observed that the charge memorandum was issued in 2023, but most of the charges related to 2010 to 2018. The Court also refused to accept Goa University counsel Adv A A Agni’s submission that the two staffers working in the petitioner’s department might be influenced by the petitioner.
The Division bench comprising Justice Mahesh S Sonak and Justice B P Deshpande noted that the High-Level Committee’s voluminous report was presented to the Executive Council members on the meeting day and soon after the members, who were present, decided to initiate an inquiry and place the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner was not given a fair treatment by the high-level committee, the Court said.
What was most disturbing was that the star witness former Registrar Prof Jayant Budkuley, who gave his statement against the petitioner, was the husband of Prof Kiran Budkuley one of the members of the High-Level Committee. Since Prof Budkuley was one of the star witnesses, Prof Kiran Budkuley should have recused herself from participating in the inquiry. In such matters, the test is never about actual bias, but the test is of a reasonable likelihood of bias, the Court said.
Adv Yogesh Nadkarni argued on behalf of the petitioner.
