JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, Smt. Dhapu Bai widow of late Sh. Kanhaiylal Dadhich, her husband who expired on 06.11.1996, has approached this Court by way of present writ petition for claiming the retrial dues in respect of her husband's service of the respondent Revenue Department as 'Patwari'. 2. The earlier round of litigation by the petitioner's husband, terminated in favour of the petitioner vide the order dated 18.11.1996 by the learned Single Judge of this Court deciding the writ petition filed by the petitioner's husband being SBCWP No. 431/1986, Kanhaiyalal v. State & Ors. , in the following terms:- "The services of the petitioner were terminated for proved misconduct on 1.5.85. Admittedly, a copy of the report of Enquiry Officer was not supplied to the petitioner. The consequence of such non-supply is obvious. The petitioner has been materially affected in his right to make effective appeal before the Board of Revenue. The order, therefore, is challenged as basically vitiated on this ground. Shri M.R. Singhvi, counsel for the respondent submits that no such contention is raised nor the petitioner has proved any material injury to him by non-supply of the copy. The petitioner is guilty of a serious misconduct of accepting illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 1100/-. In such circumstances, there is no need to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 and issue a writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioner. The position as regards non-supply of the report or material document has been considered by the Supreme Court and now an authority to pronouncement the Supreme Court exists in the judgment of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderbad v. B. Karunakar, reported in JT 1993 (6) SC 1 . In this view of the law, the only recourse permissible in the instant case. According to him, is to quash the appellate order dated 29.11.85 passed by the Board of Revenue and direct the respondents to supply to the petitioner a copy of the enquiry report on which the order of termination is based. On receipt of termination is based. On receipt of the copy, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh appeal before the Board of Revenue which the Board of Revenue which the Board of Revenue shall decide in accordance with law. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. Order dated 29.11.85 is set aside with the directions as aforesaid. On receipt of the copy, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh appeal before the Board of Revenue which the Board of Revenue which the Board of Revenue shall decide in accordance with law. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. Order dated 29.11.85 is set aside with the directions as aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs." 3. Against the order of the learned Single Judge deciding the writ petition filed by the petitioner's husband, the Division Bench appeal filed by the State, also came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 06.02.2008. The said order is also quoted herein below for ready reference:- "D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL [WRIT] No.98/1997 [ State of Raj. & Ors. v. Kanhaiya Lal ] Date of order: 06.02.2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY, HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, Dy. G.A., for the appellant. Mr. B.N. Kalla, for the respondent. *** Heard counsel for the parties. It is admitted position that by now the writ petition whose was directed to be considered at the appellate stage is dead. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant said that in this view of the matter he does not want to press this appeal. This appeal accordingly is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. Sd/- (NARAYAN ROY), CJ." 4. After the death of petitioner's husband, the Enquiry Report was supplied to her and a fresh appeal was filed by her before the Board of Revenue, which was responded vide the order/communication Annex.8 dated 31.03.2009 to the effect that on account of death of petitioner's husband, the enquiry proceedings should be treated as 'dropped'. After the death of petitioner's husband, the Enquiry Report was supplied to her and a fresh appeal was filed by her before the Board of Revenue, which was responded vide the order/communication Annex.8 dated 31.03.2009 to the effect that on account of death of petitioner's husband, the enquiry proceedings should be treated as 'dropped'. The said letter of the Registrar, Board of Revenue, dated 31.03.2009, addressed to the District Collector (Land Revenue), Chittorgarh, is also quoted herein below for ready reference:- " jktLFkku ljdkj jktLo e.My jktLFkku] vtesj dzekad jke@Hkw0v0@bZ&3@i&6 ( 10 ) @02@ fnukad 31-3-2009 ftyk dysDVj ( Hkw0v0 ), fpRrkSM+x<+A fo"k; %& Jh dUgS;kyky nk/khp e'rd iVokjh gYdk dkadjok] rglhy diklu] ftyk fpRrkSM+x<+ ds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap ds laca/k esaA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr Jherh /kkiw ckbZ nk/khp iRuh Lo0 Jh dUgS;kyky nk/khp] e'rd iVokjh gYdk dkadjok] rglhy diklu ds }kjk e.My esa izLrqr vH;kosnu dh izfrfyfi layXu gSA izkfFkZ;k us U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ;ksa ds izfr layXu dj mlds ifr LoxhZ; Jh dUgS;kyky ds isU'ku ifjykHk] ikfjokfjd isa'ku ifjykHk ,oa vuqdEik fu;qfDr lfgr vU; ifjykHk nsus dh ekax dh gSA deZpkjh ds LoxZokl ds mijkUr lHkh izdkj dh foHkkxh; tkap Lor% gh lekIr gks tkrh gSA vr% deZpkjh ds LoxZokl gksus laca/kh dFku dh iqf"V dj izdj.k dk ijh{k.k fd;k tkosa ,oa fu;ekUrxZr ifjykHk nsus gsrq leqfpr dk;Zokgh dh tkdj e.My dks lwfpr djkus dk Je djsaA Hkonh; Sd/- mi&fucU/kd ( Hkw0v0 ) jktLo e.My jktLFkku] vtesj " 5. The District Collector (Land Revenue), Chittorgarh, vide the order (Annex.9) dated 10.06.2009, however, held that since the original termination order dated 01.05.1985 was not set aside either by the High Court or by the Board of Revenue, therefore, no retrial dues was payable to the petitioner. Thereafter, vide Annex.10 order/communication dated 28.10.2009, the Registrar, Board of Revenue, also reiterated the said position as taken by the learned District Collector, (Land Revenue), Chittorgarh without taking note of the earlier communication (Annex.8) dated 31.03.2009. 6. Being aggrieved by these two impugned orders Annex.9 dated 10.06.2009 and Annex.10 dated 28.10.2009, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition, which was filed on 03.01.2011. 7. The State Government has filed a reply to the writ petition supporting the impugned orders and the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. P.R. Singh and Mr. Kamaldeep Singh, Addl. Govt. 7. The State Government has filed a reply to the writ petition supporting the impugned orders and the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. P.R. Singh and Mr. Kamaldeep Singh, Addl. Govt. Counsel, opposing the present writ petition urged that since the termination order dated 01.05.1985 had not been quashed, therefore, the retrial dues could not be paid to the present petitioner, widow of deceased Government servant, who was proceeded against for taking a bribe of Rs. 1,100/-, for which the enquiry in question was held against him; and only because the enquiry report was not supplied to him before passing of the impugned termination order, the same cannot be assailed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pradeep Choudhary relied upon the decision of this Court dated 18.11.1996, quoted above, also the Annex.8 dated 31.03.2009, the communication of the Registrar, Board of Revenue, which clearly stated that the enquiry proceedings itself should be treated as closed/dropped upon the death of the delinquent and, therefore, there was no basis for upholding his termination order as has been done by the learned District Collector and reiterated by the Registrar, Board of Revenue. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that while disposing of the earlier writ petition of the petitioner's husband on 18.11.1996, the learned Single Judge of this Court quashed only the appellate order dated 29.11.1985 and not the original termination order dated 01.05.1985 itself on the ground of non-supply of enquiry report in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderbad v. B. Karunakar, reported in JT 1993 (6) SC 1 permitting the petitioner to file a fresh appeal once the enquiry report was supplied to him. Unfortunately, the petitioner's husband, late Sh. Kanhaiyalal, expired on 06.11.1996 as would appear from the representation of the petitioner (Annex.7) dated 16.07.2007, just about 12 days before the order of learned Single Judge dated 18.11.1996, but that fact appears to have not been brought to the notice of the Court on 18.11.1996; and thus, after supply of the copy of the enquiry report to the present petitioner, widow of deceased Government servant, namely, Smt. Dhapu Bai, she preferred the fresh appeal vide Annex.7 on 16.07.2009 to the Board of Revenue. She was informed about closure of the enquiry itself vide the communication (Annex.8) dated 31.03.2009 quoted above that with the death of her husband, Sh. Kanhaiyaylal, the enquiry proceedings should be treated as dropped or closed. 10. Obviously, the petitioner thus became entitled to the grant of all the retrial dues/family pension, since the enquiry proceedings against her husband itself were dropped, therefore, no question arises of sustaining or upholding the original termination order still even thereafter, which became foundation-less. The subsequent stand taken by the learned District Collector that since the termination order dated 01.05.1985 was never quashed, is hypothetical, which in the opinion of this Court, cannot sustained. Once, the enquiry proceedings were dropped, nothing remained pending against the deceased Government servant and, therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased Government servant, namely the present petitioner, Smt. Dhapu Bai, naturally became entitled to be granted such retrial dues/family pension. The order (Annex.8) dated 31.03.2009, was with respect to her application for pension and compassionate appointment of the petitioner, and, therefore, the subsequent denial of the retrial dues to the present petitioner on the ground of termination order still sustaining, is not justified. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The impugned order Annex.9 dated 10.06.2009 and the order Annex.10 dated 28.10.2009 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the retrial dues, gratuity, pension etc., which were due to the deceased husband of the present petitioner, late Sh. Kanhaiyalal, in accordance with law. The aforesaid benefits may be computed and paid to her within a period of three months from today, otherwise the arrears will bear the interest @ 9% per annum till the actual date of payment. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.Petition allowed. *******