Srinivass Shinde vs Directorate Of Skill Development Entrepreneurship Thr Its Director And 3 Ors

2026:BHC-GOA:849
WP-15-2026_.doc
Andreza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION No. 15 OF 2026
----------------------
1. Shrinivas Shinde, Age : 41 years,
Occupation: Lower Division Clerk, Son of
Ramesh Shinde, Residing at H. No. 347/9,
Housing Board Colony, Mapusa, Bardez,
Goa – 403507.
…Petitioner
V e r s u s
1. Directorate of Skill Development &
Entrepreneurship, Through its Director,
Having its Office at Shram Shakti Bhavan,
rd
3 Floor, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa – 403001.
2. Panaji Government Industrial Institute,
Through its Principal, Having its office at
Altinho, Panaji, Goa – 403001.
3. Shri Dattaprasad V. Palni, Occupation:
Principal Residing at H. No. 39/7, Paliem,
Near Sidheshwar Temple, Ucassaim,
Bardez, Goa – 403515.
4. Kum. Mrinal Mariam De Almeida, Age:
24 years, Occupation: Lower Division Clerk,
Residing at H. No. C-16/733, Amaral
Waddo, Taleigao, Tiswadi, Goa 403002.
…Respondents
----------------------------------
Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rishikesh Gawas, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Page 1 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
Ms. Annelise Fernandes, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
---------------------------------------
CORAM : DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
th
RESERVED ON : 16 APRIL 2026
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 20 APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT
1.
Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken
up for final hearing. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents,
waive notice.
2.
By way of the Petition, the Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside
th
the impugned Order dated 26 November, 2025 passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court in Appeal No. SH/01-2025 as being illegal,
perverse and without jurisdiction. He also seeks a direction to the
Industrial Tribunal to restore the said appeal to its file and hear and
decide the same on merits in accordance with law. In the alternative, the
Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent No. 1 (Directorate of Skills
Development and Entrepreneurship) to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings
against the Respondent No. 3 for his misconduct in instigating a false
and malicious complaint against the Petitioner.
3.
The issue involved in the present matter commenced with a
Page 2 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
complaint of sexual harassment made by the Respondent No. 4 against
the Petitioner. She later retracted her complaint stating that she was
forced to make the same, on threats of future harassment by her Principal
i.e., the Respondent No.3. The Internal Complaints Committee (‘ ICC ’),
relying on her retracted statement, closed the proceedings, however,
concluding that she was forced by an ‘unknown source’ to make the
complaint. The ICC omitted the name of the Respondent No.3 from its
conclusion and instead recorded that the Complainant was instigated by
an ‘unknown source’ to make the complaint against the Petitioner. The
grievance of the Petitioner is limited to this omission.
4.
The Petitioner is a permanent Government servant, working as a
Lower Division Clerk with the Respondent No. 1. He was the accused
before the ICC constituted by the Respondent No. 1 under the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 (‘ POSH Act ’). The Respondents No. 1 and 2 are
the Employers; the Respondent No. 3 is the Principal of the Respondent
No.2-Institute and Respondent No. 4 is the Complainant.
th
5.
On 29 November 2024, the Respondent No. 4 addressed a
complaint to the Director of the Respondent No. 1 against the Petitioner
herein, alleging that the Petitioner was harassing her on basis of her
disability. She also alleged that the Petitioner did not cooperate with her
Page 3 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
and frequently passed discriminating comments such as ‘ go to hell ’ and
other such remarks. He frequently stared at her in an unpleasant and
unprofessional manner and also behaved in an aggressive and abnormal
way. She thus, requested the authorities concerned to take immediate
action against the Petitioner.
6.
An ICC was constituted to inquire into the complaint of
nd
Respondent No. 4. The Petitioner filed his reply dated 2 January, 2025
denying the allegations made by the Complainant and raised a suspicion
that the complaint was made by the Respondent No. 4, on an instigation
of a third person.
rd
7.
The ICC conducted a preliminary inquiry on 3 January, 2025.
The Respondent No. 4 admitted that her complaint was not prepared by
her and she was unaware of the contents of the said letter. She further
stated that the Petitioner had neither sexually harassed her nor troubled
her on the basis of her disability. In fact, she clearly stated that the
complaint was prepared by the Respondent No. 3 i.e., the Principal of the
Institute and she was threatened to sign the same with consequences, if
th
she refused. On 6 January, 2025, on the basis of her retraction, she
withdrew all the charges of sexual harassment against the Petitioner in a
letter submitted to the ICC. The ICC confirmed that she was not under
any pressure to withdraw her complaint and the Respondent No. 4
Page 4 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
affirmed that she wished to withdraw her complaint as the allegations
contained therein were false.
8.
On the basis of her letter of retraction as well as her statement, the
ICC concluded that the complaint was instigated by an ‘unknown source’
to file a false sexual harassment case against the Petitioner, by force
feeding a concept that the Respondent No. 3 might harass her in future.
th
9.
Accordingly, the Inquiry Report dated 10 January 2025,
recommended to the Employer that the case of the Respondent No. 4 was
a malicious complaint. The ICC also recorded that the Petitioner agreed
to the fact that some ‘unknown source’ had influenced the Respondent
No. 4 to file the sexual harassment complaint against him as she was
intellectually disabled person. Thus, the inquiry was closed and the
penalties for the Complainant under the POSH Act were waived.
10.
The Petitioner was aggrieved by the conclusion recorded by the
ICC to the extent that the ICC observed that the complaint was instigated
by an ‘unknown source’ despite the retraction letter of the Respondent
No. 4 clearly stating that she was instigated and threatened by the
Respondent No. 3 to make the complaint against him.
11.
Hence, he preferred an Appeal before the Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court, Government of Goa, which is the Appellate Authority
Page 5 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
notified under clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act of 1946 (‘ 20 of 1946 ’) under the provisions of
Section 18 of the POSH Act. His contentions were as under:-
(a) The ICC overlooked the mandate of Section 14 of the POSH
Act and closed the proceedings without recommending any action
against Respondent No. 3.
(b) The ICC failed in its duty to recommend action against the
Respondent No. 3 to the Employer for threatening the Respondent No. 4
and instigating her in making the false complaint.
(c) The ICC erred in concluding that the perpetrator was
‘unknown’ when in fact, the Respondent No. 4 had clearly named the
Respondent No. 3, who instigated her to make a false complaint; and
(d) The ICC was protecting the Respondent No.3 for reasons best
known to it.
The Petitioner has thus sought quashing of the Inquiry Report of
the ICC while holding Respondent No.3 liable for action under Section
14 of the POSH Act, pertaining to punishment for false or malicious
complaint.
12.
The Respondent No. 3 appeared in the Appeal and challenged the
maintainability of the Appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal,
holding the same to be not maintainable. The Tribunal held that the
Page 6 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
Petitioner was not affected by the conclusion of the ICC directly and that
there was no actual inquiry conducted to verify the statement of the
Respondent No. 4-Complainant, as to whether she was instigated and
forced to complain against him by the Respondent No. 3. The Tribunal
held that the Respondent No. 4 herself is a grown-up person employed
with the Respondents No. 1 and 2 and no action can be initiated against
Respondent No. 3 under Section 14 of the POSH Act, without
ascertaining the veracity of her statement. The Tribunal further observed
that considering the retraction statement of Respondent No. 4, she cannot
be considered to be a truthful witness to launch prosecution against
Respondent No. 3. The Tribunal also agreed with the contention of
Respondent No. 3 that the POSH Act being a special Act, enacted to
protect against Sexual Harassment at Workplace and for matters
connected thereto, the same cannot be a forum to settle the score of one
employee against another or against a Superior. Since no direct injury
was caused to the Petitioner and neither could he show that it was the
Respondent No. 3, who with malicious intent instigated the Respondent
No. 4 to file a false complaint, her mere retraction statement cannot be
the basis for the Tribunal to intervene in the findings/report of the ICC.
Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed. It is this Order of dismissal
which is assailed by the Petitioner in the present Petition.
Page 7 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
13.
Heard Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, Mr. Rishikesh Gawas, learned Additional Government
Advocate representing the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Annelise
Fernandes, learned Counsel representing the Respondent No. 3. I have
carefully perused the papers with their assistance.
14.
Admittedly, the proceedings before the ICC were initiated by the
complaint of Respondent No. 4, alleging her sexual harassment at
workplace, against the Petitioner. Within two months of the same, the
th
Respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 6 January 2025, to the
Respondent No. 2-Employer specifically and clearly naming the
Respondent No. 3 as the instigator of the said complaint. The relevant
contents of her letter read thus:
“ SUB:-Revocation of my sexual harassment
complaint dated 29/11/2024 against Shri. Srinivass
Shinde, LDC of Panaii Govt ITI - reg.
Sir,
I was forcibly instigated to sign on a pre-prepared sexual
harassment complaint against my colleague Shri. Srinivass Shinde,
LDC of this Institute at the instance of Shri. Dattaprasad Palni,
Principal in his cabin on 29/11/2024. The Principal showed me a
footage from his mobile of Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC during his
tenure at Govt ITI, Pernem and seeing the revengeful nature of
Shri. Dattaprasad Palni, Principal to harass and defame my
colleague Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC forced me to sign on the pre-
prepared false sexual harassment complaint. The Principal
mentioned in his pre-prepared false sexual harassment letter that
the behaviour of Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC is aggressive
(verbally/physically), abusive and abnormal. That Shri. Srinivass
Shinde, LDC frequently stares at me and other female staffs in
an unpleasant and unprofessional manner. That Shri. Srinivass
Page 8 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
Shinde, LDC said "Go to Hell" to me when I requested for help.
That Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC passes discriminating remarks on
me and shouts at me.
I deny to all the allegations cited in the pre-prepared sexual
harassment letter by Shri. Dattaprasad Palni, Principal. During his
tenure in this Institute Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC has never
behaved aggressively and abusively with me in this Institute. He
has always helped me in a very polite manner with queries in FVC
bills and never shouted at me. Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC always
tried his level best to help me. He has never starred at me in a very
unpleasant and unprofessional manner and always maintained a
colleague relation with me. He never said "Go to Hell" come and at
times when he was very busy with his Accounts work he referred me
to other staffs for help in a very polite manner. Shri, Srinivass
Shinde, LDC was doing the Accounts work allocated to him by
work allotment Order and neither interfered in my work nor
forcefully allocated work of his own.
The said footage may be related to some incident that must have
occurred in Govt ITI, Pernem and is not at all related in this false
sexual harassment complaint. The incident as shown in the footage
could have been properly investigated at Govt ITI Pernem that
provoked Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC in the said footage instead of
that the Shri. Dattaprasad Palni, Principal is misusing the said
footage to only defame Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC at all
instances. As during that course of time Shri. Dattaprasad Palni,
Principal was also the Principal at Govt ITI, Pernem. The
Principal also told me that he will bring witnesses of other female
staffs from this Institute and other ITI's to support me in this false
sexual harassment complaint against Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC.
Shri. Dattaprasad Palni, Principal was taking advantage of my
Intellectual Disability and projecting me to defame and destroy the
service career of Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC under different
sections of sexual harassment and other sections of harassment
applicable to persons with disabilities as mentioned in his pre-
prepared sexual harassment complaint. I further say that I was
forced and threatened by Shri. Dattaprasad Palni, Principal of dire
consequences.
I further say that Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC has not done any
sort of harassment to me. All the sexual harassment allegations
levelled against Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC are falsely interpreted
Page 9 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
by Shri. Dattaprasad Palni, Principal in his pre-prepared sexual
harassment complaint. I and Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC
are innocent. The conspiracy is made by Shri. Dattaprasad Palni,
Principal to fulfil his arrogant, revengeful soul motive to destroy
the integrity of work, service career and malign the reputation and
character of Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC. I hereby sincerely tender
my apology to Shri. Srinivass Shinde, LDC for the inconvenience
caused due to this false sexual harassment complaint by me due to
pressure and coercion by Shri. Dattaprasad Palni, Principal.
I am herewith submitting this letter without any coercion for
your kind perusal and to keep the record straight. For further
necessary action in the matter please.
Your's sincerely,
(Mrinal Mariam De Almeida)
L.D.C. ”
15.
A copy of the retraction letter was also sent to the Director of the
Respondent No. 1, the State Commissioner for Person with Disabilities
and the Presiding Officer of the ICC.
16.
The Inquiry Report also records the reply of the Petitioner. It also
records the statement of the Respondent No. 4 that she was threatened
with dire consequences by the Respondent No. 3 and forced to sign the
said complaint-letter against the Petitioner. Having noted the contents of
the retraction letter, the ICC clearly failed in the discharge of its duties to
specify that the complaint was being closed on account of false
allegations made against the Petitioner, at the behest of the Respondent
No. 3, who instigated the Respondent No. 4. The ICC clearly erred in
Page 10 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
recording that the Respondent No. 4 was instigated by an ‘unknown
source’ to file the false complaint, under threat of future harassment,
despite it being a matter of record that the source of instigation was
‘known’ to be the Respondent No. 3.
17.
The error on the part of the ICC in recording the instigator to be
an ‘unknown source’ instead of naming the Respondent No. 3 is a cause
of action to the Petitioner to prefer an Appeal before the Industrial
Tribunal under Section 18 of the POSH Act. Section 18 reads thus:-
“ 18. Appeal - (1) Any person aggrieved from the
recommendations made under sub-section (2) of Section 13
or under clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of
Section 13 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section
14 or Section 17 or non-implementation of such
recommendations may prefer an appeal to the court or
tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the service
rules applicable to the said person or where no such service
rules exist then, without prejudice to provisions contained in
any other law for the time being in force, the person
aggrieved may prefer an appeal in such manner as may be
prescribed.
(2) The appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred
within a period of ninety days of the recommendations.”
18.
In the present case, the Petitioner is clearly a person aggrieved by
the recommendations made by the ICC and has a statutory right to prefer
Page 11 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
an appeal in the manner prescribed under the POSH Act. It is not
necessary for the Petitioner or a person aggrieved by the ICC’s
recommendation to show any direct injury caused to him. The Tribunal
has observed that the retraction statement of the Respondent No. 4
cannot be believed to demonstrate malicious intent on part of the
Respondent No. 3. The Tribunal also held that in the absence of any
inquiry in the veracity of the retraction statement of the Respondent No.
4, neither the act of instigation nor the malicious intent of the
Respondent No. 3 is proved, to warrant grant of relief as sought by the
Petitioner. The observation of the Tribunal to the extent of the veracity
of the statement of the Respondent No. 4-Complainant, is correct, since
the same is on a mere statement of the Respondent No. 4 in her retraction
letter.
19.
A plain reading of the Inquiry Report of the ICC indicates that the
recommendation and conclusion of the ICC was recorded on a
preliminary inquiry. Before the proceedings could be taken further, the
Respondent No. 4 addressed her retraction letter, specifically naming the
Respondent No. 3-Principal as the instigator of the false complaint under
threat of future harassment. In these circumstances, there was no
occasion for the ICC to proceed further with a substantive inquiry. The
fact remains that the complaint was malicious and false in nature. The
Page 12 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
Petitioner cannot be deprived of his statutory right to Appeal against the
Inquiry Report of the ICC under the provisions stipulated in the POSH
Act. Thus, merely because the statement of the Respondent No. 4 cannot
be taken as the gospel truth, in the absence of a substantive inquiry in
that regard, it cannot be a ground per se to dismiss the Petitioner’s
Appeal as not maintainable. To that extent, the findings of the Industrial
Tribunal cannot be sustained.
20.
The grievance of the Petitioner in the appeal before the Tribunal
as well as in this petition, is limited to the omission of the name of the
Respondent No. 3 as the source of instigation. Having closed the
complaint on the basis of the retraction letter sent by the Respondent No.
4-Complainant, the ICC cannot selectively omit to name the source of
instigation, when he is named in the same retraction letter. The
conclusion of the ICC in its Inquiry Report to the extent that it records
that some ‘unknown source’ has influenced the Respondent No. 4 to file
a false sexual harassment complaint against the Petitioner, cannot be
sustained. The Tribunal ought to have considered this grievance of the
Petitioner. There is a jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal in
failing to address the said limited grievance of the Petitioner. The
Petitioner has sought restoration of the appeal to its original file before
the Industrial Tribunal, with a direction to re-hear the appeal on merits.
Page 13 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
However, I am of the considered view that the exercise of remanding the
appeal to be reheard by the Tribunal will be an exercise in futility. No
purpose will be served by remanding the matter to the Tribunal for
addressing the grievance of the Petitioner, limited to the omission of the
Respondent No.3’s name in the conclusion of the Inquiry Report. The
grievance of the Petitioner, to the extent that the ICC failed to record the
name of the Respondent No. 3, as having instigated the Complainant to
make the complaint under threat of future harassment, despite relying on
the retraction statement, is valid. The ICC cannot selectively omit to
name the Respondent No. 3 while relying on the retraction statement.
21.
This Court, in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution is well-equipped with the powers to correct the said error
made by the Tribunal and the ICC in the Inquiry Report. Hence, the
th
Order of the Tribunal dated 26 November 2025 passed in Appeal
No.SH-01/2025 deserves to be quashed and set aside. The words
‘unknown source’, appearing in the Conclusion paragraph of the Inquiry
th
Report dated 10 January 2025 of the ICC, require to be modified to the
extent that the same shall be read as the Respondent No. 4 was instigated
by the Respondent No. 3 to file a false sexual harassment case against the
Petitioner.
22.
Having held that the Petitioner is well within his statutory right
Page 14 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
to prefer an Appeal before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 18 of the
POSH Act, his prayers at clause (b) and (c) of his Appeal are premature
and thus, untenable at this stage. He has sought to hold Respondent No.
3 as liable for action under Section 14 of the POSH Act, for making a
false and malicious complaint against him, through the Respondent No. 4
and has also sought directions to be issued to the Respondents No. 1 and
2 to take disciplinary action against Respondent No. 3 for making false
and malicious complaint. Similarly, the Petitioner’s prayer clause (c) to
direct disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 3 also cannot be
granted. Section 14 of the POSH Act, reads thus:-
“ 14 . Punishment for false or malicious complaint and
false evidence - (1) Where the Internal Committee or the
Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at a
conclusion that the allegation against the respondent is
malicious or the aggrieved woman or any other person
making the complaint has made the complaint knowing it
to be false or the aggrieved woman or any other person
making the complaint has produced any forged or
misleading document, it may recommend to the employer
or the District Officer, as the case may be, to take action
against the woman or the person who has made the
complaint under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of
Section 9, as the case may be, in accordance with the
provisions of the service rules applicable to her or him or
where no such service rules exist, in such manner as may
be prescribed:
Page 15 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
Provided that a mere inability to substantiate a complaint
or provide adequate proof need not attract action against
the Complainant under this section:
Provided further that the malicious intent on part of the
Complainant shall be established after an inquiry in
accordance with the procedure prescribed, before any
action is recommended.
(2) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee,
as the case may be, arrives at a conclusion that during the
inquiry any witness has given false evidence or produced
any forged or misleading document, it may recommend to
the employer of the witness or the District Officer, as the
case may be, to take action in accordance with the
provisions of the service rules applicable to the said witness
or where no such service rules exist, in such manner as may
be prescribed.”
23.
Section 9 of the POSH Act provides that a complaint of sexual
harassment can be made by an ‘aggrieved woman’. Section 9(2) permits
such a complaint to be made by a legal heir of an aggrieved woman or
such other person as may be prescribed, if such a woman is unable to
make a complaint on account of her physical or mental incapacity or
death or otherwise.
24.
Section 2(a) of the POSH Act defines an aggrieved woman. It
reads as thus:
Page 16 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
“ (a) “aggrieved woman” means —
(i) in relation to a workplace, a woman, of any age,
whether employed or not, who alleges to have been
subjected to any act of sexual harassment by the
respondent;
(ii) in relation to a dwelling place or house, a woman of
any age who is employed in such a dwelling place or
house;
25.
Since a complaint under this Act, can be made only by an
aggrieved woman or on her behalf, as contemplated under Section 9, the
provision prescribing punishment for making malicious complaint is also
applicable only to the person making the complaint i.e., the aggrieved
woman or a person making the complaint. In the present matter, the
Respondent No.3 is neither the aggrieved woman nor a person making
the complaint. He is dragged in the proceedings, pursuant to the
retraction statement of the Respondent No. 4-Complainant. Admittedly,
no substantive inquiry is made to establish the veracity of the statement
as there was no occasion for the same. The ICC merely accepted the
statement of the Complainant and closed the proceedings.
26.
The extent of penalty powers of the ICC under Section 14 of the
Act are limited to making a recommendation to the employer or the
District Officer, as the case may be, to take action against the woman or
Page 17 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
the person who has made the complaint under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) of Section 9, as the case may be. The statute does not provide
for action/punishment, for false or malicious complaint or giving false
evidence before the ICC, against a person who may have instigated a
woman or a person making the complaint. The action or punishment
contemplated under Section 14 of the Act is limited to the woman or
person making the complaint. In the present case, it is the Respondent
No. 4 who is the author of the complaint. It may be that she was
threatened with dire consequences of future harassment that propelled
her to make the false complaint against the Petitioner. The Petitioner may
be within his rights in seeking action against the Respondent No. 4.
However, his prayer to direct disciplinary action against the Respondent
No. 3 under the POSH Act is misplaced and hence, rejected.
th
27.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Order dated 26
November 2025 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court in
Appeal No. SH-01/2025 is quashed and set aside. Instead of restoring
the said Appeal to the original file of the Industrial Tribunal, to decide
the same on the limited aspect of omitting the name of the Respondent
No. 3 as the person who instigated the Respondent No. 4 to file the false
sexual harassment case against the Petitioner, it is directed that the
conclusion of the ICC will read as thus:-
Page 18 of 19
th
20 April 2026

WP-15-2026_.doc
“The Respondent No. 3 instigated the Respondent No. 4 to
file a false sexual harassment case against the Petitioner.”
28.
Accordingly, the Petition is allowed. Rule is made partly absolute.
29.
The Petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings
against the Respondent No. 3, before an appropriate forum, if
permissible in law. If such proceedings are initiated against the
Respondent No. 3, it is needless to say that he shall be afforded an
opportunity of being heard to defend himself.

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
Page 19 of 19
Signed by: ANDREZA RODRIGUES
EPEREIRA
Designation: Senior Private Secretary
to the Hon'ble Judge
Date: 20/04/2026 17:48:58
th
20 April 2026