Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Asha Laxman Ingle vs M/O Railways on 7 January, 2026
1 OA.228/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
O.A.No.228/2016
Dated this Wednesday the 07th day of January, 2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Shri Krishna, Member (Administrative)
Hon'ble Mr.Umesh Gajankush, Member (Judicial)
Asha Laxman Ingle,
Working as: Trackwomen, Unit No.6,
Sr. Section Engineer (P.Way), Bodvad,
Central Railway, Bhusawal Division,
Residing at: At Post Chinchkhed (SIM),
Kolhadi, Tal. Bodvad, Dist. Jalgaon - 425 001. .. Applicant.
( By Advocate Ms.Vaishali Agane )
Versus
1. Union of India, through
The General Manager, Central Railway,
Head Quarter CST, Mumbai - 400 001.
2. The D.R.M.,
Central Railway, Head Quarter,
DRM Office, Bhusawal - 425 201.
Hemant Anant
Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198,
Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121,
3. The Asstt. Divisional Engineer,
West Akola, SSE (P-Way),
PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN=
Hemant Anant Mahabal
Mahabal
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
Bodvad, Central Railway,
Bhusawal Division - 425 201.
4. Sr. Section Engineer (P-Way),
Bodvad, Central Railway,
Bhusawal Division - 425 201. .. Respondents.
( By Advocate Shri Sachin Patil ).
2 OA.228/2016
Order reserved on : 02.01.2026
Order Pronounced on : 07.01.2026
ORDER
Per : Shri Krishna, Member (A)
The applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to seek the following reliefs:
"a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside and quash order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the ADEN (W) Akola Disciplinary Authority and direct to the Respondents have allowed to join the service forthwith in the interest of justice.
b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside and exonerate the charge memorandum dated 13.09.2014 issued by the ADEN (W) Akola and be direct to the Respondents have restate to the applicant with back wages and service benefits."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is daughter of a retired employee Shri Laxman Somaji Ingle, who took Voluntary Retirement from the Railway Service under the LARSGESS Scheme Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Hemant Anant DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, with effect from 18.03.2013, was appointed in his place to the post of PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Trackman vide Office Order No.68/2013 dated 18.03.2013 after passing the requisite medical examination and found fit in the medical class Fit B-1 vide medical certificate dated 12.11.2012. She completed 2 years of service on 18.03.2015. 3 OA.228/2016 2.1. The respondents issued Charge-Memorandum dated 13.09.2014, in which the one Article of Charge was framed alleging that the applicant committed serious misconduct and violated the Rule 3(i), (ii) and (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966 and 23 papers connected with SF-5 were listed. The Charge-Memorandum also mentions that they were issued from SSE/P.Way/BDWD L.No.DBWD/P.Way/ALI/Con dated 09.09.14. However, the same were not supplied to the applicant.
2.2. After issuance of the charge-sheet the applicant was issued a show cause notice dated 23.09.2014 by the same Disciplinary Authority. The applicant submitted the representation on the same date on the show cause notice followed by representation dated 26.09.2014 demanding natural justice but the Disciplinary Authority has not considered her submissions. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal Authority appointed the Inquiry Officer on 20.04.2015.
Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 2.3. The applicant has again made representation to the Disciplinary Authority vide her representation dated 06.05.2015 requesting to supply the relevant documents listed in the Charge-Memorandum Annexure-III dated 13.09.2014. The applicant has made application 4 OA.228/2016 for providing defence counsel vide her letter dated 29.05.2015 and again requested for providing her relevant documents as mentioned in SF-5 dated 13.09.2014. However, neither the documents were supplied to her nor the inquiry proceedings were completed. The applicant was provided with any copy of the inquiry report and suddenly vide impugned order dated 08.01.2016, the services of the applicant were terminated on the ground that she has hidden the information regarding her marital status as the married daughter is not eligible for the appointment under LARSGESS Scheme. 2.4. It has been submitted that the impugned order is illegal as the same is in violation of instructions issued by the Railway Board vide their letter dated 26.07.2012 wherein the Railway Board has directed that the "ward" for the purpose of LARSGESS will cover son/daughter of the Railway employee irrespective of the marital status for Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal recruitment under the Scheme. Thus, the respondents have violated Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the instructions of the Railway Board which is binding upon them. It has been submitted that the Charge-Memorandum itself was unambiguous and non-specific as it was not specified in the Charge-
Memorandum as to what mis-conduct has been committed by the 5 OA.228/2016 applicant. Moreover, without giving any opportunity to the applicant, the respondents have in violation of the principles of natural justice terminated the services of the applicant.
2.5. It has been further submitted that the applicant's marriage was solemnized on 15.06.2013 i.e. 3 months after her joining the Railway Service and the Marriage Certificate dated 15.06.2013 was issued by the Registrar of Marriage, Jalgaon vide Certificate No.SPLM/JLGI/2013/186 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2.6. Aggrieved by the above action of the respondents the applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.
3. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the O.A.
3.1. It has been submitted that the applicant has submitted Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal declaration dated 06.05.2013 in which it is stated that she is unmarried Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 and declared that the declaration is true. However, it was learnt from the reliable sources that she was married to one Shri Vinod Suralkar and also given birth to a female child on 05.04.2012 in General Hospital, Jalgaon.6 OA.228/2016
3.2. It has been submitted that the marriage of the applicant with Shri Vinod Suralkar is confirmed from the Voting Card No.AKA 3027984 issued by the Election Commission on 15.01.2013 for Jamner Legislative Assembly. It has been submitted that the applicant's case was referred to the Headquarters and the Headquarters Office vide letter dated 23.09.2015 instructed that married daughter is not ward of Railway employee and, therefore, not eligible for appointment under LARSGESS Scheme. Therefore, the appointment order issued to the applicant was terminated being void ab-initio. 3.3. It has been submitted that as per Section 41 (d) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, relationship of Guardian and wards is ceased in case of female ward, by her marriage to her husband who is not unfit to be guardian of her person or, if the guardian was appointed or declared by the Court, by her marriage to her husband who is not, in Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal the opinion of the Court, so unfit. It has been further submitted that Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the respondents has issued show cause notice dated 23.09.2014 which was received by the applicant on 25.09.2014 and thereafter the applicant's service was terminated.
3.4. The respondents have placed reliance on the following judicial 7 OA.228/2016 pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(i) In the case of Bank of India Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and others, (2005) 7 SCC 690, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person who seeks equity must come with clean hands.
(ii) In the case of Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission Vs. Farhat Rassol and Others, wherein it was observed that when a fraud was sought to be played by the respondent by giving wrong information as to his eligibility, benefit of which fraud cannot be allowed to the respondent.
(iii) In the case of Central Airmen Selection and others Vs. Surender Kumar Das in CA No.251/1994, wherein it was ordered that it is well known that the principle of promissory estoppel is based on equitable principles.
(iv) In the case of Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal SCC 779, wherein it was ordered that the general rule is that while Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary.8 OA.228/2016
(v) In the case of S.P. Chingalvaraya Vs. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands.
(vi) In the case of Vijay Syal Vs. S/O Punjab, (2003) 9 SCC 401 = 2003(2) SCSLJ 134, it was observed that misrepresentation before the Court-concealment of material facts from the Court must be ready to take consequences that follow on account of his own making.
(vii) Reliance has also been placed on the sou-moto proceedings against Mr.R. Karuppan, Advocate in Writ Petition (Civil) No.77/2001, wherein it was stated that at common law Courts took action against a person who shown to have made a statement, material in the proceedings, which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true.
Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply submitted by the Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 respondents.
4.1. It has been submitted that the Disciplinary Authority. ADEN (W), Akola has illegally terminated the service of the applicant by impugned order. It has been submitted that the Ministry of Railways, Railway 9 OA.228/2016 Board vide instructions dated 26.07.2012 have clearly instructed that for the purpose of LARSGESS it will cover son/daughter of the Railway employee irrespective of the marital status for recruitment under the Scheme.
4.2. It has been further submitted that there is no any other provision under the LARSGESS Scheme by which a married daughter can be denied the employment under the LARSGESS Scheme. It has been submitted that the Charge-Memorandum in SF-5 was issued to the applicant in an illegal manner without adhering to the principles of natural justice and her services have been terminated without completing the inquiry.
4.3. It has been submitted that the marriage certificate dated 06.05.2013 has been considered by the respondents before passing the impugned order. It has been submitted that the respondents have Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal placed reliance on the letter dated 02.01.2015 issued by the Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Government Hospital, Akola without seal and signature. The said document has not been issued by the Government Authority.
Therefore, the burden of proof for the said documents lies with the respondents. It has been submitted that the letter of SPO dated 10 OA.228/2016 23.09.2015 submitted in the reply of the respondents has not been passed by the Railway Board or the General Manager of the Central Railway and, therefore, cannot be passed in violation of the Railway Board instructions.
5. The respondents have not filed any reply to the rejoinder.
6. During arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed under the LARSGESS Scheme on the voluntary retirement of her father from the Railway on Safety Ground and she joined on 19.03.2013. The Charge-Memorandum was issued on 13.09.2014 which was ambiguous and non-specific as it has not specified as to what misconduct has been committed by the applicant. She further submitted that the list of documents specified in SF-5 have not been supplied to the applicant even after representation having made by the applicant. She submits that the Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal charge-Memorandum was issued on 13.09.2014, however, the show Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 cause notice was issued on 23.09.2014 i.e. after issuance of the Charge-Memorandum. She submits that even though the Inquiry Officer was appointed and applicant attended one hearing thereafter nothing was heard about the inquiry proceedings whether they were 11 OA.228/2016 abandoned or dropped as no inquiry report has been supplied to the applicant.
7. She further submitted that the impugned termination order was issued on 08.01.2016 on the ground that she has hidden the married status i.e. she was married even though marriage was solemnized on 15.06.2013 and a valid marriage certificate was issued by the Government of Maharashtra which has not been disputed by the respondents. She submits that the applicant has joined the Railway Service on 19.03.2013 thus, she was a confirmed employee as maximum probation period of 2 years was over on 18.03.2015 and, therefore, the applicant could not have been terminated without conducting the inquiry.
8. It has been submitted that the Railway Board itself in their letter dated 26.07.2012 has stated that the ward of the employee i.e. son Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal and daughter are entitled under the LARSGESS Scheme irrespective Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 of the marital status. Thus, the action of the respondents was in contradiction of Railway Board instructions and thus illegal. She submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity to the applicant of being heard before passing the order, 12 OA.228/2016 thus, the same was in blatant violation of principles of natural justice.
9. Mr.Sachin Patil, learned counsel for the respondents by placing reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and others, (2005) 7 SCC 690 and supported the impugned order/action.
10. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the pleadings and documents filed on record and given our thoughtful consideration.
11. It is not in dispute that father of the applicant was working as Trackman with the respondents at Akola. He has applied for voluntary retirement from Railway Service under the LARSGESS Scheme with effect from 18.03.2013 and requested for appointment of her daughter Kum. Asha Laxman Ingle to be appointed as Trackman in his place.
The office of the ADEN (W) Akola passed an order dated 15.03.2013 Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal addressed to Shri Laxman Somaji i.e. father of the applicant intimating Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 him that the Competent Authority has accepted his request for Voluntary Retirement under the LARSGESS Scheme with effect from 18.03.2013 and simultaneously as per the instructions of Divisional Office, Bhusawal, "ward" Kum. Asha Laxman appointed as a 13 OA.228/2016 Trackman in the grade of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs.1800/-
with effect from 19.03.2013.
12. In pursuance of the above order dated 15.03.2013 of the ADEN (W), Akola, ADEN (W), Akola issued Office Order No.68/2013 dated 18.03.2013 appointing the applicant in place of her father as Trackman under the LARSGESS Scheme. The charge-Memorandum came to be issued on 13.09.2014 in which 1 Article of charge has been imputed. The Article of Charge in Annexure-I reads as under:
"1) That the said Shri/Ku.Asha Laxman Ingle, while working as Trackman under SSE (P.Way) BDWD, has committed serious misconduct that specified as in the enclosed enclosed letter of SSE (P.Way) BDWD and thus violated railway service conduct rules 1966 rule-3
(i)(ii)(iii)."
Annexure-II contains the statement of imputation, which reads as under:-
"Statement of Imputation of committed serious misconduct Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, in support of the Article of charges framed against Shri/Ku Asha Laxman Ingle, Trackman U.No.05 under SSE PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 (P.Way) BDWD.
That the said Shri/Ku. Asha Laxman Ingle, while working as Trackman under SSE (P.Way) BDWD, has committed serious misconduct that specified as in the enclosed letter of SSE (P.Way) BDWD and thus violated railway service conduct rules 1966 rule-3 (I) (ii) (iii)."14 OA.228/2016
Annexure-III contains list of documents, which reads as under:
"1. 23 Papers Connected with SF-5 received from SSE/P.Way/BDWD L.No. BDWD/P.Way/ALI/Con dtd 09.09.14."
Annexure-IV contains as under:-
"LIST OF WITNESS
1. SSE (P. Way) BDWD
2. OS, SSE (P. Way) BDWD."
13. The Inquiry Officer was also appointed on 20.04.2015 by the ADEN (W), Akola. One Shri O.N. Yadav, SSE (P. Way), SEC, Central Railway was appointed, a copy of which was also provided to the applicant on 30.04.2015. The applicant vide her representation dated 06.05.2015 addressed to the Disciplinary Authority has requested for supply of the documents listed in the Annexure-III and marked copy to the Inquiry Officer. Even though the inquiry proceedings were initiated and Charge-Memorandum was issued on 13.09.2014, the same Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Hemant Anant DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, Disciplinary Authority vide his letter dated 23.09.2014 issued a show PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 cause notice to the applicant stating that she has hidden the fact that she was already married. It has also been mentioned that the nomination form for GIS and PF dated 16.02.2012, Pass and PTO dated 30.08.214 is subsequently to his retirement dated 18.03.2013 15 OA.228/2016 which has manipulation of the name of Smt.Asha and asked her explanation as to why her services under the LARSGESS Scheme should not be terminated for giving fake information and concealing the facts from Railways. The said letter was served on the applicant on 25.09.2014. However, the respondents have failed to explain as to what happened to the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated against the applicant i.e. whether the Charge-Memorandum was dropped or inquiry is abandoned or were concluded.
14. While issuing the impugned order of termination of the applicant, the respondents have simultaneously issued letter to her father Shri Laxman stating that while processing his application for appointment of his daughter Smt.Asha Ingle he has hidden the information regarding marital status i.e. marriage of his daughter and they are terminating her services and advised him to join duty with immediate Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal effect. The letter further states that the period from voluntary Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 retirement dated 18.03.2013 to joining date will be treated as dies-
non. The letter was issued with the approval of Competent Authority.
However, the Competent Authority has not been specified.
15. The applicant replied to the above show cause notice vide her 16 OA.228/2016 letter dated 26.09.2014 stating that she should be given the opportunity of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice and she will be able to prove her innocence in the DAR inquiry.
She submitted that she will produce all evidence during the inquiry proceedings. The respondents have not submitted any order which they have passed on the representation of the applicant on 26.09.2014.
16. We further find that since the applicant was appointed on 18.03.2013 and joined the duty on 19.03.2013 she has completed 2 years of service on 18.03.2015 and thus she was a deemed confirmed employee as her probation was not extended by passing any order.
Regarding Charge-Memorandum issued to the applicant on 13.09.2014, we find that the same is ambiguous and non-specific and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, the Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal Charge-Memorandum is quashed and set aside. The Hon'ble Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Bhimrao Patil vs. Jawahar Sahakari Sootgirni Ltd. Dhule, (2017)(2) MH.LJ, has held that whether the charge levelled against the employee are vague and ambiguous, the inquiry proceedings are vitiated. 17 OA.228/2016
17. The impugned termination order has been passed on the ground that she has concealed the status of her marriage even though the marriage was solemnized on 15.06.2013 and respondents have not been able to offer any comments in their reply on the marriage certificate issued by the Government of Maharashtra vide Marriage Certificate No.SPLM/JLGI/2013/186 dated 15.06.2013. Moreover, the Railway Board itself in letter addressed to the General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur has specifically stated that "It is intimated that "ward" for the purpose of LARSGESS will cover son/daughter of the Railway employee only irrespective of the marital status for recruitment under the Scheme."
18. We find that the issue of employment to married daughter was considered by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court headed by the then Chief Justice (as his Lordship then was) in the Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. in Writ С Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 No.60881/2015 with Writ C No.2024/2015 decided in OA No.2054 of 2021, and held as under:-
"The issue before the Court is whether marriage is a social circumstance which is relevant in defining the ambit of the expression "family" and whether the fact that a daughter is married can constitutionally be a permissible ground to deny her 18 OA.228/2016 the benefit of compassionate appointment. The matter can be looked at from a variety of perspectives. Implicit in the definition which has been adopted by the state in Rule 2 (c) is an assumption that while a son continues to be a member of the family and that upon marriage, he does not cease to be a part of the family of his father, a daughter upon marriage ceases to be a part of the family of her father. It is discriminatory and constitutionally impermissible for the State to make that assumption and to use marriage as a rationale for practicing an act of hostile discrimination by denying benefits to a daughter when equivalent benefits are granted to a son in terms of compassionate appointment. Marriage does not determine the continuance of the relationship of a child, whether a son or a daughter, with the parents. A son continues to be a son both before and after marriage. A daughter continues to be a daughter. This relationship is not effaced either in fact or in law upon marriage. Marriage does not bring about a severance of the relationship between a father and mother and their son or between parents and their daughter. These relationships are not governed or defined by marital status. The State has based its defence in its reply and the foundation of the exclusion on a paternalistic notion of the role and status of a woman. These patriarchal notions must answer the test of the guarantee of equality under Article 14 and must be held answerable to the recognition of gender identity under Article 15.
The stand which has been taken by the state in the counter affidavit proceeds on a paternalistic notion of the Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, position of a woman in our society and particularly of the position of a daughter after marriage. The affidavit postulates that after PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 marriage, a daughter becomes a member of the family of her husband and the responsibility for her maintenance solely lies upon her husband. The second basis which has been indicated in the affidavit is that in Hindu Law, a married daughter cannot be considered as dependent of her father or a dependent of a joint Hindu family. The assumption that after marriage, a daughter cannot be said to be a member of the family of her father or that she ceases to be dependent on her father 19 OA.228/2016 irrespective of social circumstances cannot be countenanced. Our society is governed by constitutional principles. Marriage cannot be regarded as a justifiable ground to define and exclude from who constitutes a member of the family when the state has adopted a social welfare policy which is grounded on dependency. The test in mątters of compassionate appointment is a test of dependency within defined relationships. There are situations where a son of the deceased government servant may not be in need of compassionate appointment because the economic and financial position of the family of the deceased are not such as to require the grant of compassionate appointment on a preferential basis. But the dependency or a lack of dependency is a matter which is not determined a priori on the basis of whether or not the son is married. Similarly, whether or not a daughter of a deceased should be granted compassionate appointment has to be defined with reference to whether, on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, she was dependent on the deceased government servant. Excluding daughters purely on the ground of marriage would constitute an impermissible discrimination and be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
A variety of situations can be envisaged where the application of the rule would be invidious and discriminatory. The deceased government servant may have only surviving married daughters to look after the widowed parent - father or mother. The daughters may be the only persons to look after a family in distress after the death of the bread earner. Yet, under the rule, Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, no daughter can seek compassionate appointment only because she is married. The family of the deceased employee PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 will not be able to tide over the financial crisis from the untimely death of its wage earner who has died in harness. The purpose and spirit underlying the grant of compassionate appointment stands defeated. In a given situation, even though the deceased government employee leaves behind a surviving son, he may not in fact be looking after the welfare of the surviving pårents. Only a daughter may be the source of solace - emotional and financial, in certain cases. These are not isolated situations but 20 OA.228/2016 social realities in India. A surviving son may have left the village, town or state in search of employment in a metropolitan city. The daughter may be the one to care for a surviving parent. Yet the rule deprives the daughter of compassionate appointment only because she is married. Our law must evolve in a robust manner to accommodate social contexts. The grant of compassionate appointment is not just a social welfare benefit which is allowed to the person who is granted employment. The purpose of the benefit is to enable the family of a deceased government servant, who dies in harness, to be supported by the grant of compassionate appointment to a member of the family. Excluding a married daughter from the ambit of the family may well defeat the object of the social welfare benefit.
13. The same principle was applied in Githa Hariharan vs. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 298 while defining the ambit of the expression "the father, and after him, the mother" in Section 6(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Supreme Court observed that if the word 'after' was read to mean that a mother would be disqualified from acting as a guardian of a minor during the lifetime of the father, this would run counter to the constitutional mandate of gender equality and will lead to an impermissible differentiation between males and females.
Interpreting the word 'after', the Supreme Court held that it does not necessarily mean after the death of the father but would mean in the absence of, whether temporary or otherwise or in a situation of the apathy of the father or his inability to maintain the child.
Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, .....
.....
PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
16. The same view has been adopted by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Smt. Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao vs. The State of Maharashtra, WP No.5592 of 2009 decided on 13.08.2014 where it was held that the exclusion of a des 20 OA No.2054 of 2021 married daughter for the grant of a retail kerosene license on the death of the license holder was not justifiable. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held 21 OA.228/2016 as follows:
17. "This exclusion of a married daughter does not appear to be based on any logic or other justifiable criteria.
Marriage of a daughter who is otherwise a legal representative of a license holder cannot be held to her disadvantage in the matter of seeking transfer of license in her name on the death of the license holder. Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India the right of a citizen to carry on any trade or business is preserved. Under Article 19(6) reasonable restrictions with regard to professional or technical qualifications necessary for carrying on any trade or business could be imposed. Similarly, gender discrimination is prohibited by Article 15 of the Constitution. The exclusion of a married daughter from the purview of expression "family" in the Licensing Order of 1979 is not only violative of Article 15 but the same also infringes the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)
(g) of the Constitution."
17. In conclusion, we hold that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression "family" in Rule 2 (c) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
.....
19. At the outset, it may be noticed that it is now well settled Hemant Anant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, that the object of according compassionate appointment to the dependent of a deceased government servant, is to help the PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 family to tide over the crisis, which unfortunately they are faced with on account of death of the sole earner of the family. The intention is to ensure that the family is able to face the catastrophe and, therefore, emphasis has always been laid on according immediate appointment to the dependent." 22 OA.228/2016
19. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, Railway Board's instructions dated 26.07.2012 regarding eligibility of married daughter under the LARSGESS Scheme and various judicial pronouncements as discussed above, the impugned termination order is in violation of Railway Board instructions dated 26.07.2012 and the same cannot be upheld in the eyes of law. Therefore, the same are quashed and set aside.
19.1 The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service with immediately with all consequential benefits except back wages. The order is to be complied within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
20. The O.A. is allowed in terms of the above order and directions.
There shall be no order as to costs.
21. All pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
Digitally signed by Hemant Anant MahabalHemant Anant DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 (Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna) Member (J) Member (A) H 23 OA.228/2016 Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Hemant Anant DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960724113109, CN= Hemant Anant Mahabal Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.08 15:58:29+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0