JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that:- a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed. b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned orders dated 15-10-2005 (Annx.9) passed by the disciplinary authority, dated 02-08-2006 (Annx.11) passed by the appellate authority and dated 03-09-2009 (Annx.13) passed by the reviewing authority as also the charge-sheet (Annx.7) may kindly be quashed and set aside. c) by an appropriate writ order or direction all the consequential retiral benefits on the death of deceased Government employee be granted to the petitioner. d) by an appropriate writ order or direction all the dues of the deceased Government employee be granted to the petitioner. e) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner or her son on the compassionate ground. f) Any other appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. g) Cost of the writ petition may please be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is wife of Rajkumar, a government servant who expired on 05.09.2008. The petitioner’s husband-Rajkumar was appointed on the post of Constable with the respondents. During his service tenure, one FIR bearing no. 165/1993 for the offence under Sections 302 & 34 IPC was registered before the Police Station, Surajpole Distt. Udaipur against Late Rajkumar and two other persons. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court conducted the trial and Late Rajkumar was convicted for the aforesaid offences and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine stipulation vide the judgment and order dated 18.05.1995. 2.1. After the aforesaid conviction, the District Superintendent of Police passed an order dated 06.04.1996, whereby the services of Late Rajkumar were terminated with effect from 13.05.1995. Thereafter, Late Rajkumar aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 18.06.1995 filed a criminal appeal (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 246/1995) before this Hon’ble Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 21.04.2001 by giving benefit of doubt to Late Rajkumar. Thereafter, Late Rajkumar aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 18.06.1995 filed a criminal appeal (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 246/1995) before this Hon’ble Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 21.04.2001 by giving benefit of doubt to Late Rajkumar. Thereupon, the District Superintendent of Police passed an order dated 02.12.2002, whereby the termination order dated 06.04.1996 was set aside but vide the said order itself Late Rajkumar was placed under suspension w.e.f. 06.04.1996; in furtherance, Late Rajkumar was taken back in service vide order dated 27.12.2002. 2.2. Subsequently, the respondents issued a memo dated 22.01.2003 along with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1958’) and the enquiry was initiated against Late Rajkumar and an enquiry officer was accordingly appointed. After completion of the enquiry, the respondents on the basis of the enquiry report, again terminated the services of Late Rajkumar vide the impugned order dated 15.10.2005 and also ordered seizure/forfeiture of the amount, except the payment given during suspension period, of Late Rajkumar lying in the government account. 2.3. Thereafter, Late Rajkumar filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Udaipur (Appellate Authority) and the said appeal was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 02.8.2006. Thereupon, Late Rajkumar filed a review petition before His Excellency the Governor of the State; during pendency of the review petition, Rajkumar expired and his Legal Representative was taken on record, whereafter, the said review was dismissed vide impugned order dated 03.09.2009. 2.4. Thus, being aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 15.10.2005, 02.08.2006 and 03.09.2009, the petitioner preferred the present petition claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Late Rajkumar, husband of the petitioner, was already acquitted by the this Hon’ble Court in criminal case, and thus, the departmental proceedings initiated against her husband by the respondents was not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the enquiry and impugned orders were passed after issuance of the charge-sheet against the husband (Late Rajkumar) of the petitioner solely on the basis of the criminal case, whereas in that case, Late Rajkumar was already acquitted by this Hon’ble Court. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the enquiry and impugned orders were passed after issuance of the charge-sheet against the husband (Late Rajkumar) of the petitioner solely on the basis of the criminal case, whereas in that case, Late Rajkumar was already acquitted by this Hon’ble Court. It was also submitted that the departmental proceedings were based on the identical set of facts which was narrated in the aforementioned criminal case, and therefore, the entire proceedings in question initiated by the respondents were not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that Late Rajkumar, the husband of the petitioner expired way back in the year 2005 and the petitioner is widow lady and is entitled for all the retiral benefits and other dues towards the services rendered by her husband in the respondent-department. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on the behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf on the petitioner, submitted that Late Rajkumar was involved in the heinous crime of murder and the same was done by him during his official duties, and therefore, the enquiry was initiated, as per the Rules of 1958. 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that Late Rajkumar was acquitted by this Hon’ble Court by giving the benefit of doubt, and the departmental enquiry was initiated on the basis that while Late Rajkumar, husband of the petitioner was on official duty he was charged with the crime in question, and thus, such acquittal cannot be treated to be a bar on initiation and holding of the departments proceedings against him. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned orders are justified in law. Learned counsel also submitted that in catena of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that in a departmental proceeding preponderance of probability is sufficient to prove the charge. Therefore, the impugned orders have been rightly passed by the respondents against Late Rajkumar, husband of the petitioner. 4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that during the entire proceedings, Late Rajkumar was given complete opportunity of hearing and to produce evidence and witnesses in support of his defence, and thereafter, upon examining the entire record as well as material available, the charges against Late Rajkumar were found to be proved, and therefore, the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 5. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner’s husband-Late Rajkumar was appointed on the post of Constable with the respondents; during his service tenure, the aforementioned FIR for the offence under Sections 302 & 34 IPC was registered against him and two other persons. Thereafter, the Trial Court conducted the trial and Late Rajkumar was convicted for the aforesaid offences and ordered to undergo life imprisonment alongwith fine stipulation vide judgment and order dated 18.06.1995. After the said conviction, the respondents terminated the services of Late Rajkumar on 06.04.1996, whereafter, being aggrieved of the aforementioned conviction, Late Rajkumar preferred the aforementioned criminal appeal before this Hon’ble Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 21.04.2001, while acquitting Late Rajkumar by extending the benefit of doubt. 6.1. Thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 02.12.2002, set aside the termination order passed against Late Rajkumar, but vide the said order itself Late Rajkumar was placed under suspension w.e.f. 06.04.1996; in furtherance Late Rajkumar was taken back in service on 27.12.2002. Subsequently, the respondents issued a memo along with charge-sheet under the Rules of 1958 and the enquiry was initiated against Late Rajkumar. After completion of the enquiry, the respondents on the basis of enquiry report, terminated the services of Late Rajkumar vide impugned order dated 15.10.2005 and also ordered seizure/forfeiture of the amount, except the payment given during suspension period, of Late Rajkumar lying in the government account. Late Rajkumar against the said order, preferred an appeal before the Appellant Authority and the said appeal was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 02.8.2006, whereafter, Late Rajkumar filed a review petition, which too was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 03.09.2009. 7. This Court further observes that in the charge sheet, two charges were made against the Rajkumar and as per the entire record, at the time of the crime in question, in connection with which he was acquitted by this Hon’ble Court by giving benefit of doubt, Late Rajkumar was on official duty. 7. This Court further observes that in the charge sheet, two charges were made against the Rajkumar and as per the entire record, at the time of the crime in question, in connection with which he was acquitted by this Hon’ble Court by giving benefit of doubt, Late Rajkumar was on official duty. The said two charges are reproduced as hereunder-: ^^1- vki fnukad 7-5-1993 dks ok;jysl ij lUns'k okgd dh M~;wVh ij FksA vki mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks lwpuk fn;s fcuk o fcuk vodk'k Lohd`fr ds LosPNkiwoZd xSj gkftj gks x;s A blh fnu 'kke 8-15 cts vki Vsdjh pkSjkgk ij igqaps tgka vkius jes'k xkMjh ds lkFk ekjihV dh o pkdw ls okj dj mls ?kk;y dj fn;k A ftlls jes'k xkMjh dh e`R;q gks xbZ A 2- mDr ?kVuk dkfjr djus ij vkids fo:) Fkkuk lwjtiksy ij iz-la-165@93 /kkjk 302] 34 Hkknala ds vUrxZr iathc) gqvkA bl vfHk;ksx esa vkidks fxjrkj fd;k tkdj pkyku U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;k A ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k mn;iqj }kjk fnukad 18-5-1995 dks vkidks /kkjk 302 Hkknala ds vijk/k ds fy, vkthou dkjkokl rFkk ,d gtkj :i;s ds vFkZn.M ls n.Mkfn”V fd;k x;k A vFkZn.M ds lank; esa O;frdze djus ij 5 ekg dk lk/kkj.k dkjkokl i`Fkd ls Hkqxrk;k tkus dk n.M fn;k x;k A mDr vkns'k ds fo:) vihy djus ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj }kjk vkidks fnukad 21-8-2001 dks lUnsg dk ykHk nsdj cjh fd;k x;k A^^ 8. This Court also observes that the Appellate Authority considering all the relevant aspects of the case and also considering the acquittal of the Late Rajkumar, passed the impugned order dated 02.08.2006; relevant portion of which is reproduced as hereunder: ^^eSaus vihy izkFkZuk i= dh rqyuk esa leLr foHkkxh; i=koyh] izkFkfed tkap fjiksVZ ,oa foHkkxh; tkap fjiksVZ] vkjksi i=] tokc] dkj.k crkvks uksfVl] fu.kZ; vkns'k] vihy izkFkZuk i=] vihy izkFkZuk i= ij izkIr ftyk iqfyl v/kh{kd dh fVIi.kh] lEcfU/kr vfHksys[k rFkk vihykFkhZ }kjk O;fDrxr lk{kkRdkj easa crk;s x;s gkykr dk Hkyh Hkkafr xgurk ls v/;;u] euu ,oa fo'ys"k.k fd;k rks vkjksi iw.kZr% izekf.kr gS A ekuuh; gkbZdksVZ us Hkh vius fu.kZ; esa fy[kk gS fd ^^vfHk;kstu dh dgkuh lR; gks ldrh gSA^^ vkjksi dks fo'oluh; &#2338ax ls U;k;ky; esa fl) dj ikuk ,d i~Fkd fcUnq gS A izkFkfed tkap ,oa foHkkxh; tkap esa Hkh vkjksi izekf.kr ekus x;s gS A fnukad 7-5-93 dks jes'k xkMjh ds lkFk gqbZ pkdw ls ekjihV ds nkSjku mldh e~R;q esa nks"kh dkfu0 dh fyIrrk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk A vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vihy ,oa O;fDrxr lk{kkRdkj esa crk;s x;s rF; ekuus ;ksX; ugha gS A dkfu0 dks gR;k tSls xEHkhj vijk/k esa lafyIr gksus ls fxjrkj dj pkyku ls'ku U;k;ky; easa is'k fd;k x;k tgka vkthou dkjkokl ,oa vFkZn.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k A ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh lUnsg dk ykHk nsrs gq, cjh fd;k x;k A eSa fo}ku iqfyl v/kh{kd ftyk mn;iqj ds fu.kZ; ls iw.kZr% lger gwa A^^ 9. This Court also observes that the respondents initiated the departmental enquiry against Late Rajkumar, husband of the petitioner under the Rules of 1958, and after giving the proper opportunity of hearing and considering all material available on record, the impugned orders were passed, which are justified in law. 10. This Court further observes that personnel, like Late Rajkumar, husband of the petitioner, who was working as Constable in the disciplined force i.e. the Police Department, and while being on official duty, he was charged with the crime in question; in furtherance, he also convicted by the learned Trial Court, but was acquitted by this Hon’ble Court, while extending him the benefit of doubt. Such employee, like Late Rajkumar, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was rightly put to face the departmental inquiry, because it was a serious breach being committed while being on duty under the respondent-department, and therefore, the entire impugned action of the respondents is justified in law. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.