JUDGMENT 1. - Gopal Lal-the husband of the appellant, was a Constable in the Rajasthan Police Service. On the charge of gambling, in the house of one Nand Lohar along with three other persons, a case under Section 3/4 of the Gambling Act, 1949 was registered. He was tried for the said offence in the Criminal Court but was acquitted on 1st September, 1970. 2. Departmental proceedings were also initiated against him. Enquiry under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules was conducted. The charges were established and he was dismissed from service on 25th of January, 1963. 3. He died on 25th October, 1991. 4. His widow-Smt. Sunder Bai filed Writ Petition No. 832/91, praying for setting aside the order of dismissal from service passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bundi. Prayer for arrears of pay, pension, gratuity and other consequential benefits was also made. 5. The most important fact to be highlighted in this case is that the only charge levelled against Gopal Lal was that a sum of Rs. 4/- was recovered while lying in his front when he was playing cards. For this, he has been dismissed from service. The law is well settled that irrespective of the criminal proceedings of the same charge, departmental proceedings can be initiated and they can go on simultaneously. There is no bar. Thus, the Superintendent of Police, Bundi had jurisdiction to proceed with the matter irrespective of the pendency of any criminal proceedings. 6. Without any reference of the judgment delivered by the criminal court acquitting the appellant Gopal Lal the dismissal order passed against Gopal Lal has to meet the test the fairness independently. Looking to the charges levelled against him, we are examining the matter. 7. We are shocked to see the quantum of punishment. Awarding punishment of dismissal on a having found Rs. 4/- paying in his front while gambling in the house of Nand Lohar is unjustified. In our opinion, it was a case where minor punishment of censure or warning should have been awarded to meet the ends of justice. 8. Since, the delinquent officer is dead, no useful purpose would be served by awarding against him any minor penalty. In this case, the husband of the appellant had been facing disciplinary proceedings since 1963. He has suffered a lot during that period. He has also undergone a lot of mental agony. 8. Since, the delinquent officer is dead, no useful purpose would be served by awarding against him any minor penalty. In this case, the husband of the appellant had been facing disciplinary proceedings since 1963. He has suffered a lot during that period. He has also undergone a lot of mental agony. He along with his family members had to face a lot of financial crisis as well. In our opinion, his widow and dependents after the death of Gopal Lal should not be allowed to suffer any further for this little amount of Rs. 4/-. After his acquittal from the criminal Court, in the eyes of law he did not commit any offence of gambling. Looking to the above-mentioned circumstances, we are of the view that the dismissal order deserves to be quashed. 9. The learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the dismissal order and passed an order for payment of 50% arrears of salary, which would be paid to the appellant-Sunder Bai within a period of four months and the respondents were directed to file an affidavit in this Court that they have paid the said amount to her. The Court further ordered that she will be entitled to the family pension if the said scheme is available to the similarly situated employees of the State of Rajasthan. But the prayer for arrears of salary from the date of dismissal to the estate of acquittal was refused. The order does not suffer from any illegality. Looking to the facts of this case, we do not find anything special to take a contrary view. 10. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******