JUDGMENT : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Grievance of the petitioner, widow of the deceased employee, is against the order dated 09.09.2022 (Annex.3), vide which direction was given for the recovery of the amount of alleged embezzlement from the retiral benefits of petitioner’s husband. Further, seeks directions to the respondents to make payment of gratuity, the difference in salary of subsistence allowance and salary for the suspension period of petitioner’s husband, annual grade increments of the suspension period, selection grades, promotions, and regular pension from the date of retirement till the death of the petitioner’s husband and payment of family pension to the petitioner with arrears from the date of death of her husband with interest thereon @ 18% per annum. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband Shri Amritlal Solanki was working on the post of Block Elementary Education Officer. He retired on 30.09.2010 and died on 24.12.2021. 2.1. An FIR No.30/2006 came to be lodged against the petitioner's husband and others with the Anti-Corruption Bureau Chowki, Jodhpur in which after investigation, a challan was filed before the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Jodhpur, where the trial is going on. 2.2. In respect of the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner's husband was issued a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. The departmental inquiry also could not be completed till the death of the petitioner's husband. 2.3. On 09.09.2022, an order was passed by the respondent No.1. The departmental inquiry was dropped. At the same time, the period of suspension was treated as regular and he was held to be entitled to all benefits during the suspension period. It was also directed that the amount of embezzlement shall be recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner's husband. 2.4 After the death of the petitioner's husband, the criminal proceedings in the aforesaid case were also dropped against him vide order dated 10.03.2022 and the petitioner submitted an application to the respondents for granting her service benefits of her husband as well as family pension. The respondents have not done the needful. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. 2.4 After the death of the petitioner's husband, the criminal proceedings in the aforesaid case were also dropped against him vide order dated 10.03.2022 and the petitioner submitted an application to the respondents for granting her service benefits of her husband as well as family pension. The respondents have not done the needful. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Defence taken in reply is that while Shri Amritlal Solanki was posted as Senior Deputy District Education Officer cum ?.?.?.?., Osian, during the period 6.9.2003 to 22.1.2005, he was holding the charge of supervision of wheat distribution under Mid-day Meal Scheme by the contractor from the godown of the Food Corporation of India. Shri Amritlal Solanki, however, failed to discharge the duties as per guidelines of the Scheme, committed irregularities, and embezzlement of 7182.50 quintals of wheat in connivance with the contractor. In the said case, the Anti-Corruption Bureau conducted an investigation and found embezzlement of wheat costing Rs.1,34,74,241/-, and Shri Amritlal Solanki and 9 other persons were found to be involved in the case. 3.1. It is submitted that the inquiry report, it was mentioned that during the course of inquiry, the husband of the petitioner neither appeared before the Inquiry Officer nor submitted any reply, defence/evidence/witness, etc. Since the husband of the petitioner passed away on 24.12.2021, therefore, in terms of the guidelines provided by the State Government vide circular dated 16.3.1998, in respect of such circumstances, the departmental proceedings against the husband of the petitioner were dropped. It was also ordered in respect of the loss caused to the State exchequer by the embezzlement made by the husband of the petitioner that recovery will be made from the retiral benefits. 3.2. It is an admitted position of the case that the recovery of the embezzled amount is yet to be made from the retiral benefits of Late Shri Amritlal Solanki in accordance with the statutory provisions and guidelines issued by the State Government/Department of Personnel from time to time in this regard. In such circumstances, the relief claimed by the petitioner at this pre-mature stage is not sustainable. The order granting a provisional pension to the petitioner issued by the competent authority in the matter, as well as the acts and actions of the answering respondents, are perfectly legal, valid and justified. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. In such circumstances, the relief claimed by the petitioner at this pre-mature stage is not sustainable. The order granting a provisional pension to the petitioner issued by the competent authority in the matter, as well as the acts and actions of the answering respondents, are perfectly legal, valid and justified. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the competing contentions of the learned counsels and perused the case file. 5. I shall proceed to render my opinion and record my reasons thereof in the succeeding paragraphs. 6. First and foremost, trite law it is that retiral benefits/family pension of a widow is not the largesse, but earnings of an employee earned by rendering his services to the State. To treat the same as a bounty at the mercy or the benevolence of the State would be a travesty of justice. Here is a case, where paradoxically, the deceased employee during his lifetime was being accorded the benefit of his pension, though on a provisional basis, but upon his death, his widow is being forced to live in penury, as the family pension has been denied to her on the ostensible ground that in the criminal proceeding initiated by the department, the trial was still pending against the husband of the petitioner, so was the case with regard to the departmental proceedings. However, what is perplexing is the blowing of hot and cold by the department at the same time. It decided not to pursue its case on the departmental side against the petitioner’s husband, and as far as, the criminal proceedings are concerned, the same stood abated, resultantly, there being no finding of guilt against him on either front. Yet, vide the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 (Annex.3), direction was given for the recovery of the amount of alleged embezzlement from the retiral benefits of petitioner’s husband. 7. In the course of the hearing, on a Court query puts to the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether recovery can be made from the deceased employee, which is akin to punishment being awarded without finding of guilty, no satisfactory response has come-forth. 8. Conceded position, however, which emerges is that there is no finding of guilt rendered qua the petitioner’s deceased husband either in the criminal proceedings or in the civil/departmental proceedings. 9. 8. Conceded position, however, which emerges is that there is no finding of guilt rendered qua the petitioner’s deceased husband either in the criminal proceedings or in the civil/departmental proceedings. 9. Aside from the above, the department is approbating and reprobating, inasmuch as, vide impugned order dated 09.09.2022 (Annex.3), the deceased employee’s suspension was revoked, and it is stated therein that he shall be entitled to all the arrears of salary during the suspension period as well as other consequences arising therefrom. But is paradoxical that at the same time, cryptically, it is stated in one line that recovery qua the embezzlement shall be made from the pensionary/terminal benefits. It is not stated as to what is the reasoning for passing such a cryptic order of punishment without there being any finding of guilt qua the deceased employee. 10. As an upshot of my discussion hereinabove, the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 (Annex.3) herein cannot be sustained. The same is set aside to the extent of imposing the punishment of recovery on the deceased employee without there being any finding of guilt against him. 11. In the parting, I may hasten to mention that the date of alleged incident is 09.09.2005 followed by charge-sheet dated 02.11.2011. The delay, as the dates aforesaid reveal, in concluding the departmental proceedings on 09.09.2022 is attributable to the department. It took no steps, whatsoever, to expeditiously conclude the pending proceedings. 12. Be that as it may, whether attributable to the petitioner or her husband, or the department, the delay is colossal. Such extensive delay cannot be ground for presuming guilt against a delinquent employee. The department's argument that due to the petitioner's husband’s non-participation, delay holds him accountable is flawed, as the department had ample opportunity to take necessary steps to conclude the pending proceedings. In fact, the prolonged delay, spanning from the incident date until retirement, should rather warrant dropping the departmental proceedings. However, this question remains open. Another aspect to consider is that such prolonged delays, spanning decades, render both civil and criminal proceedings redundant due to the fading human memory and the inability to recall events and document significance. Additionally, evidence and witness testimony lose their vigor and confidence over time, making it challenging to derive meaningful results from events dating back 20 years. Therefore, the impugned order ought to be set aside on this ground as well. 13. Additionally, evidence and witness testimony lose their vigor and confidence over time, making it challenging to derive meaningful results from events dating back 20 years. Therefore, the impugned order ought to be set aside on this ground as well. 13. The respondents are directed to pay the family pension/other service dues, which were withheld pursuant to the order impugned, to the widow of the deceased employee along with arrears w.e.f. the date the same fell due along with interest as per applicable service rules till the date of actual payment. 14. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.