Honble MISHRA, J. – The petitioner, Sundar Bai is the widow of one Gopal Lal who had been working as Constable in the Rajasthan Police and was posted at Police Lines, Bundi prior to his death and dismissal.By an order dated 25.1.1963 the petitioners husband was dismissad from service for the charge of gambling under Sec. 3/4 of the Gambling Act of 1949 as he was alleged to have been found gambling by playing cards in the house of one Nand Lohar with three others and was,therefore, held guilty of misconduct in a departmental enquiry, as a result of which he was dismissed from service. A criminal case for the same charge had also been lodged against Gopal Lal, which was tried in the Court of Divisional Magistrate, Bundi and by judgment and other dated 1.9.1970, the Constable Gopal Lal was acquitted of the aforesaid charge. It may be pertinent to state herein that Gopal Lal had taken an objection in the departmental proceeding that the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding for the same charge should not simultaneously be allowed to proceed, but the Superintendent of Police, who held the enquiry had refused to acceed to the said request and had conducted the departmental proceedings even before the criminal trial was concluded and awarded a penalty of dismissal from service as stated earlier. The delinquent employee, Gopal Lal there- fore petition, she had also challenged the penalty of dismissal but before the same could be ultimately decided, he died on 25.10.1981. His wife Sunder Bai, therefore got herself substituted and she challenged her husbands dismissal and claimed arrears of pay pension, gratuity and other incidental benefits. Prior to the filling of this writ filed an application for review before the Governor of Rajasthan against the order of the Appellate Authority arising out of departmental proceedings and had also filed a writ petition bearing D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 347/1928 which, however, was not decided on merit as the review petition before the Governor filed by the petitioner was still pending at that time. However, since the review was not decided at all in spite of long lapse of time, the widow of Gopal Lal, Sundar Bai, the petitioner herein has filed this writ petition for setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Police Bundi and thereafter dismissal of his appeal and claimed arrears of pay, pension, gratuity and other consequential benefits. (2). The matter has been contested on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and vide its counter-affidavit, first of all as objection had been raised that in fact., no review petition was pending before the Governor due to which the writ petition is not maintainable. Thereafter, it had been contested on the ground that the petitionrs husband deceased Gopal Lal was not fit to be reinstated in service as he was found gambling with Vishnu , Tejmal and Shakoor and when the place was raided all the four persons had thrown the cards on the floor and sum of Rs.4/- was recovered lying in front of the delinquent constable and some money was found in the pocket of the constable. It has been contended threrein that the order of penalty is a well reasoned order and the charge was proved. There was no reason to set aside the order of dismissal and there was no question of his reinstatement. Consequently, his widow is not entitled to get any gratuity, pension or other benefits of service of her deceased husband. (3) While contesting this writ petition, what seems to have been missed by the respondent is that the disciplinary authority at that point of time was not justified in proceeding with the enquiry when the request was made to that effect as the Criminal Court was holding the trial in regard to the same charge. The departmental authorities, therefor ought not to have proceeded with the enquiry when a criminal case was lodged for the same offence and it was pending in the Court of competent jurisdiction. If the Enquiry Officer, however, still proceeded with the enquiry, the same cannot be allowed to over-ride the effect of the judgment and order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction as the same would render it a nullity. If the Enquiry Officer, however, still proceeded with the enquiry, the same cannot be allowed to over-ride the effect of the judgment and order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction as the same would render it a nullity. The pro- per course for the department, in my opinion, was to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order of the Magistrate, if it felt aggrieved with it the same being in confict with the result of its enquiry proceedings. That having not been done, the judgment and order passed by the Court having jurisdiction to try the same cannot be held non est. (4) The petitioners husband, Gopal Lal, therefore after his acquittal on 1.9.1970 had a right to be in reinstated service, but in spite of the fact that the deceased filed an application before the Director General of Police on 21.11.1970 informing him of his acquittal of the charge of of gambling, rejected it on the ground of limitation completelyignoring that the delinquent employee could not have been held responsible for the delay in the trial. The petitioner pursued his case one after the other availing legal remedies ultimately died on 25.10.1981. (5) Under the circumstance set forth above, the petitioners deceased husband cannot be denied the arrears of salary from the date of the judgment and or- der of his acquittal till the date of his death i.e. 1.9.1970 upto 25.10.1981 . (6) However, there is no material, nor it is possible at this stage for this Court to arrive at a conclusion whether petitioners husband was gainfully employed during this period or not; therefore, the ends of justice, in my opinion, would be met if the deceased Gopal Lal is paid 50% (fifty percent ) of his arrears of salary which would be paid to his wife Sundar Bai-the petitioner herein within a period of four months after which the respondents are directed to file an affidavit in this Court that they have paid the said amount to the petitioner. In addition, she will also be entitled to the family pension if the said scheme is available to the similarly situated employee in the State of Rajasthan. In addition, she will also be entitled to the family pension if the said scheme is available to the similarly situated employee in the State of Rajasthan. The prayer for arrears of salary from the date of dismissal to the date of acquittal is refused as the order of dismissal against the petitioners husband was in operation which can be held to be set aside only after the order of acquittal was passed. The writ petition is, thus, allowed in the aforesaid terms, but without costs.