EXPOSED: Goan Observer has in the past exposed the involvement of Snip chain of saloons in trafficking and exploitation of women as documented by an American anthropologist studying the spa industry in Goa. The present dispute was over the work permit of an Indonesian lady who was employed by Snip even though she had a work permit for some other company that was not even in the same field
BY GO TEAM
Veteran SP Bosco George, considered one of the most honest and conscientious police officers in the state, has rebutted the charges by owners of the Snip chain of saloons who were previously investigated for illegally bringing in women from abroad for their beauty parlors. Bosco George is the SP in-charge of the Foreigners Regional Registration Office
As SP in-charge of the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, Bosco George did not know the sequence of events that would unfold when he received a request for registration of six female Indonesian nationals in May 2018.
The facts of the case, as put forth by Bosco George in his reply to a complaint dated September 28, 2018 are as follows:
On receiving the passports, visas and other documents submitted, the FRRO went through them and finally passed an order on September 10, 2018, noting that the conditions of the visas had been violated, saying —
“On above Visa No. VK4655998 dated 08/02/2018 there is endorsement “Registration within 14 days of arrival in India”. However you have approached for registration after 14 days i.e on 11/05/2018.
Also there is’ endorsement on the Visa “To work as Spa Trainer at Ajanta Medicals Pvt. Ltd.” in Goa. However as per the documents furnished by you it is transpired that you are employed at M/s Snip Salon and Spa Panaji.
It also transpires that Ajanta Medicals Pvt. Ltd. Situated at 71 Bethora Industrial Estate, Bethora, Ponda is a manufacturing unit manufacturing “Adusol” Ayurvedic Compound and is not connected with the working of Snip Spa & Saloon which is a beauty parlour and thereby not fulfilling the Visa Manual conditions.
All the above acts on your part amounts to Visa violation. “
The same Order dated September 10, directed the six female Indonesian nationals to exit/leave the country by September 20, 2018, and further directed them to furnish a copy of the confirmed tickets by September 17, 2018, to the office to process their file in order to facilitate their exit by September 20.
SEPTEMBER 25 HC ORDER
The aggrieved six Indonesian nationals preferred a Writ Petition having Stamp number main no. 3145/2018 before the High Court challenging the Order dated September 10, 2018.
The High Court on September 25, 2018 passed the following Order:
The impugned order dated 10 September 2018 be treated as a show cause notice specifying the grounds against the Petitioner.
The Petitioner will appear before the FRRO, Panaji, Goa on 28 September 2018 at 11.00 a.m. personally or through a representative or Advocate/s.
It is open to the FRRO to grant time to the Petitioner by fixing further date, in case the Petitioner wants to produce document in support of her case.
The FRRO will, after considering the reply of the Petitioner, pass necessary order as per law.
SEPTEMBER 28 MEETING
Accordingly on September 28 at around 11.00 am the learned Advocate/Complainant appeared before the FRRO for the personal hearing, introduced herself as Adv S Pai Raikar and said that she was appearing on behalf of the six Indonesian nationals.
Deputy Superintendent of Police Mrs Maria Monserrate and Police Inspector Mrs Nutan U Vernekar were present during the entire hearing.
(Ed. note: The following extracts are from Bosco George’s (hereafter the ‘Undersigned’) reply to a complaint filed after the September 28 meeting. Irrelevant or repetitive portions have been excluded)
‘23. The Undersigned states that the Complainant was told that the Undersigned being the FRRO would like to get the version of the foreigners and requested to call one of the Indonesian nationals in the chamber in the Complainant’s presence. At this time the Complainant for the reasons best known to her was reluctant and insisted that the Undersigned should give time of three weeks and was not ready to produce the Indonesian nationals.
24. The Undersigned states that on the request of the Undersigned, the Complainant produced Ms Nengah Julistrini but instead of allowing the Undersigned to talk to the foreign national in the presence of the Complainant, the same was objected and said that the Complainant needed time of three weeks for furnishing the required documents. Once again the Undersigned requested the Complainant that the Undersigned needs to talk to them about their visa violations and its consequences.
25. The Undersigned states that while the say of Ms Luh Putu Evi Damayanti, Indonesian national, was going to be heard, the Complainant again refused and was trying to dictate terms to the Officials i.e. the Undersigned as well as the other officers present in the Chamber during the hearing when the Officials were acting as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court and in accordance to law.
26. The Undersigned states that when the say of the above named Indonesian nationals was being heard, one male Advocate barged into the chamber of the Undersigned without seeking permission or identifying himself and that he outrightly objected to the Undersigned speaking to the foreign national Ms Luh Putu Evi Damayanti. The said male Advocate further went to state that he is only seeking time and that the Undersigned have no right to hear the foreigners in person and that the Undersigned should not put any questions to the foreign national.
27. The Undersigned states that at this point DYSP Maria Monserrate intervened and asked him who he was for interjecting into the proceedings. In an extremely arrogant manner the male Advocate refused to identify himself. The Undersigned further states that the DYSP told him that there is already one Advocate here who is representing the foreign national whereas the male Advocate straight away took objection to being identified and to continue the further proceedings and raised his voice by saying that he is not going to allow the proceedings to continue.. The Undersigned states that the said person further in a threatening manner said that he would file contempt against me and the other Official’s in the High Court and also would Complain to the DGP, Goa.
28. The Undersigned states that both the Advocates did not co-operate and objected to the further hearing, the Complainant and the male Advocate asked the foreign national who was in chamber of the Undersigned to leave and he along with the Complainant left the office along with foreign nationals, by merely submitting an Application asking for three weeks time. The Undersigned later came to know that the name of the said Advocate was Mr Raunaq Rao who in fact is the husband of the Complainant.
29. The Undersigned therefore had no option but to pass a reasoned order Undersigned vide Order dated September 29, 2018, directed the Indonesian nationals to leave India by October 5, 2018, on account of the violations of the Visa Conditions. The said order passed by the Undersigned reads as below:’
(Ed. note: The Order here reiterates the details of the original Order, the challenge to the HC and the HC Order of September 25, and then continues as follows:-)
‘4) In view of above order a personal hearing was being given to you on 28/09/2018. While your statement was being recorded your advocates objected to the same and you left the office with them.
5) You have also furnished an application dated 28/09/2018 seeking three weeks time to procure documents required to be submitted along with the reply to the Show Cause notice issued by this authority.
6) It is to inform that you have already violated the visa conditions of non registration and change of employment and no further time can be considered as since the date of your application i.e. 1/05/2018 sufficient time has been granted by this office which is more than four and a half months. More over an MOU which was produced is not complementary to the requirement of change of employer. This authority relies on the documents which were furnished at the time of seeking above employment visa and which were furnished to this office during registration and enquiry.
7) As per Chapter 7 “Employment Visa“ of Visa Manual, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, at point 7.11 “Dealing with change of employer”, as per para ii (a) Prior permission of the Ministry of Home Affairs is required for change of employment and to a Note:For the above purpose the holding company and subsidiary shall have the same meaning as provided in section 2 of the Companies Act 2013.
8) Therefore, In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (0) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of Foreigners Act 1946 (Central Act 31 of 1946), read with Notification No.1103 (E) dated 14/05/2012 of Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the Undersigned being FRRO, Goa hereby orders that since Ms. Luh Putu Evi Damayanti, Indonesian national, holder of Passport No. B 0015231 has violated the above Visa conditions, she shall leave India by 05/10/2018”.
30. Upon being served with the Order dated September 29, 2018, the six Indonesian nationals submitted their reply via Speed Post to the Office of the Undersigned on October 1, 2018.
31. The Undersigned in the interest of justice and fair play by perusing the reply submitted before the Office of the FRRO, thought it appropriate to defer the Order dated September 29, 2018, and gave another opportunity to the Indonesian nationals to submit relevant documents by October 12, 2018.
33. The Undersigned states that throughout the hearing the Undersigned was respectful to the Complainant and always addressing her as “Ma’am” and at no time the Undersigned has been disrespectful or misbehaved with her as alleged by her in the Complaint. This statement of the Undersigned can be vouched and corroborated by the other two lady colleagues/Officials viz. Mrs Maria Monserrate, DYSP, Foreigners Branch and Mrs Nutan U Verenker, Police Inspector, Foreigners Branch who were present throughout the hearing. The Undersigned states that both the Officers who were present at the time of hearing are voluntarily willing to appear before this Hon’ble Commission and to submit their say.
34. The Undersigned states that during the Undersigned’s service, he has conducted several personal hearings wherein Applicants of different nationalities were afforded personal hearings which includes males as well as females who have never objected or raised any grievance against the Undersigned while conducting these hearings. This itself shows the decorum maintained and the calm environment while conducting the personal hearings.
36. The Undersigned states that as the FRRO for the State of Goa, it is his duty and responsibility to ensure that the safety and security of the foreigners is ensured and to facilitate/coordinate with the civil Authorities and their respective embassies when in distress.
37. The Undersigned states that on October 5, 2018, the Undersigned appeared before your Hon’ble Commission and explained the incident that occurred on September 28, 2018, in the presence of the lady colleagues. The Undersigned wishes to re-iterate that the Complainant has filed a false Complaint and as such the suggestion of written apology cannot be accepted for the false and fabricated averments in the Complaint. The Undersigned further states that without holding himself up on a pedestal, if the Complainant feels that being a lady that her sentiments were hurt the Undersigned is willing and ready to apologise to her in person without the same words being used against him for any other purpose, and at the same time denies that the Undersigned ever verbally abused her, was arrogant, or misused his authority at any given point during the course of hearing.
38. The Undersigned having utmost respect to the rule of law and obeying the Order of the Hon’ble High Court, the Undersigned permitted the Complainant to represent the Indonesian nationals for the personal hearing.
39. The Undersigned believes and has a strong suspicion that this Complaint is made before the Hon’ble Commission in order to pressurize the Undersigned from doing his job. The Undersigned states that despite the matter being sub-judice before this Hon’ble Commission, no stone is left unturned to portray the Undersigned in bad light and every attempt is being made to tarnish the image of the Undersigned. The Undersigned states
that after the Complaint was filed with this Hon’ble Commission, there were already stories being carried out via print media into the said complaint. The Undersigned states that this amounts to media trials and such stories would prejudice the mind of this Commission. The Undersigned states that this also amounts to character assassination.‘
‘Without prejudice to aforesaid Preliminary Objections and facts, the Undersigned on merits of the case states and submits the following para wise reply to the averments in the Complaint:-
At the outset the Undersigned submits that the contents of the Complaint are false and unless specifically admitted herein under, are denied in toto and the contents which are not specifically denied may not be construed as having been admitted by the Undersigned.
With reference to the unnumbered para 1 at page 1, of the Complaint, the Undersigned states that the fact that the Complainant is an advocate is a matter of record. The Undersigned further states that contents of para 1 is not admitted due to want of knowledge
With reference to the unnumbered paras 4 and 5 at page 3, of the Complaint, the Undersigned specifically denies that he verbally abused the Complainant and ever said that he is not concerned with any Advocate. The intention of the Complainant can be clearly seen from the allegations in the above. It is further denied that the Undersigned ever told the Complainant that she has no right to talk.
With reference to the unnumbered paras 1,2,3 at page 4, of the Complaint, the Undersigned specifically denies that he spoke to the Complainant in a loud booming voice and began to yell at the Complainant. It is further denied that the Undersigned even said that “he doesn’t care what the High Court has said”. It is further denied that he told the Complainant that “if she doesn’t bring her clients in his chamber will record that nobody is present and deport them”. It is specifically denied that the Undersigned said to the Complainant “To shut up “and said that she has no right to be present in the Enquiry or to talk to him”.
With reference to the unnumbered paras 1,2,&5 at page 5, of the Complaint, the Undersigned specifically denies that the Undersigned and his officers ever stated that the Complainants did not deserve time and a decision was already taken. However time was granted to the Complainants clients and the hearing was deferred. It is specifically denied that the Undersigned demeaned the Complainant and humiliated her.
With reference to the unnumbered paras 3 & 4 at page 6, of the Complaint, the Undersigned specifically denies that the FRRO officials did not give an opportunity to the Complainant to speak to her clients. It is specifically denied that the Complainant’s clients answers were being manipulated, doctored and wrongly recorded. It is denied that words were being put into the complainant’s client’s mouth. It is denied that Undersigned shouted at Complainant. It is specifically denied that the FRRO officials were working in tandem and that the hearing was a farce. The Undersigned states that the FFRO officials being women were comfortable with the Undersigned as they know him to be a soft spoken Individual and has never had any issues against him.
With reference to the unnumbered paras 3,4,6 at page 7, and para 2 &5 at page 8, & para 1 & 3 at page 9 of the Complaint, the Undersigned specifically denies that he ever stated that “ I don’t need the High Court to tell me what to do. I am the boss”. The Undersigned has been an officer in the Police Department for 31 years and has always been respectful, and obliged to every order of any court or forum. It is specifically denied that there was unruly behaviour on the part of the Undersigned or there was a hostile environment created where the Complainant felt threatened and humiliated. It is specifically denied that the Undersigned does not know how to converse with a woman in a civil and dignified manner. The Undersigned throughout his career has dealt with many women in his professional category. It is specifically denied that the Undersigned is a disgrace to the police force. The Undersigned has worked with the police department for 31 years with the highest amount of honesty and integrity and has won many laurels and praise for the same. The Undersigned’s record speaks for itself.
It is specifically denied that the Undersigned be directed to tender any written apology. It is specifically denied that the Undersigned has grossly abused his authority and used abusive language deprivative [sic]of women’s dignity and that the Undersigned has misbehaved with the Complainant.
The Undersigned further specifically denies each and every allegation of the Complainant which is contrary to and inconsistent whatever is stated in this reply.
It is submitted that the Complainant is not entitled to any relief and it is therefore prayed by Undersigned that the Complaint filed by the Complainant be dismissed.’