Judgment :- 1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The petitioner is the wife of one Subramanya Boyan, who was working as a Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies. The petitioners husband was holding the post of Special Officer in Tirupattur Taluk Co-operative Housing Society from 13. 1980 to 11.01.1982 and he was suspended from service, pending enquiry. Subsequently, he was given charge-memo dated 112. 1986. Though he generally denied the charges, he did not give any detailed explanation. Thereafter, an oral enquiry was conducted and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioners husband guilty of the charges and the charges framed against him were that he had encroached upon the Government land and he also purchased lands from several other persons without informing the Government and in violation of the Conduct Rules. He also purchased a Motor-cycle during May, 1982 with many accessories and no prior permission was obtained. He had misappropriated several amounts in the Society. 3. On the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer, the Deputy Registrar accepted the same and removed him from service by an order dated 30.12.1988. The petitioners husband filed an appeal dated 12. 1989 before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. His appeal was dismissed vide order dated 29. 1993. Subsequently, the petitioner, who was arrayed as Accused No.1 in C.C. No. 173 of 1988 filed by the Inspector, CCIWB, Vellore, which was tried by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore. He was acquitted by judgment dated 10. 1994. Therefore, on the strength of the same, the petitioner preferred a further appeal to the State Government. In his appeal, he had enclosed a copy of the judgment in the criminal proceedings, in which he was acquitted, as an additional ground. 4. However, the Government by G.O.(D).No. 441 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 110. 1996, dismissed the appeal. In the appeal, the petitioners husband was informed that the acquittal was only by giving benefit of doubt and that will not have any bearing. He was further informed that the charges of acquiring 63 cents of land in Mukkulappalli village on 3. 1981 and 4.15 acres of poramboke land and also purchase of Motor-cycle are grave misconducts. He also committed misappropriation of Rs.539/-by taking small amounts on several occasions which was also another misconduct. Therefore, the petitioners husbands appeal was not entertained. He was further informed that the charges of acquiring 63 cents of land in Mukkulappalli village on 3. 1981 and 4.15 acres of poramboke land and also purchase of Motor-cycle are grave misconducts. He also committed misappropriation of Rs.539/-by taking small amounts on several occasions which was also another misconduct. Therefore, the petitioners husbands appeal was not entertained. After the receipt of the said order, the petitioners husband died on 2. 1997. It was thereafter the petitioner, being the wife of the deceased, has filed the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Saravanavel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the departmental enquiry, there was no proof that the petitioner had purchased the lands and reasonable opportunity was not given. With regard to misappropriation and the acquittal of the petitioners husband in the criminal case were not taken note of by the authorities. 6. Both the contentions are erroneous. The petitioners argument that her husband was not given reasonable opportunity cannot be accepted. Secondly the acquittal by the Criminal Court was clearly on the basis of benefit of doubt and not on merits. Even otherwise, the said acquittal came subsequent to the order of dismissal passed against the petitioners husband. After the appellate order, there was no obligation for the employer to wait for the outcome of the Criminal Case. The allegation against the petitioners husband was in clear violation of Government Servants Conduct Rules. The basis of the Criminal Case filed against the petitioners husband was entirely different. Even the subsequent acquittal was taken note of by the Government and they have passed a reasoned order rejecting the stand of the petitioners husband. 7. Under such circumstances, no case is made out by the petitioner and the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.