Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer :-

"1. That order dated 15.12.2016 Annexure -7 may kindly be quashed and set aside being without application of mind, illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary without jurisdiction.

2. That the petitioner may kindly be granted all the family pension and retiral benefits of her husband.

3. That it may kindly be declared that on the death of the husband of the petitioner present petitioner being wife is entitled for all the retiral benefits since her husband has already completed the adequate service in the department.

4. Any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble Court deem it proper and found favourable to the petitioner, may kindly be passed.

5. Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded."

2. The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner's husband was working with the respondent as Pump Operator and was posted at 24 Division (P.N. 28 division) Nachna, Jaisalmer. The petitioner's husband had an unblemished track record until FIR was lodged against him. The FIR culminated into a trial conducted by Additional Session Court, Fast Track No. 1, Pali in case No. 52/01. The judgment was rendered against the husband of the petitioner and he was sentenced in the same which resulted into he is remaining in custody for more than 48 hours. The judgment of conviction is on record, on page no. 57 of the petition. By the said judgment, the husband of the petitioner was convicted under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149, 341, 326/149, 323/149 and 307/149 of IPC. The sentence was suspended by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in an appeal and the petitioner's husband was released from the judicial custody on 20.04.2005. The petitioner thereafter moved an application on 20.03.2006 seeking reinstatement in service after revocation of suspension. However, the respondent did not initiate any departmental inquiry or departmental proceedings against the petitioner's husband whatsoever as a consequence of the conviction dated 23.08.2004. The petitioner's husband was suspended on 23.08.2004 and remained under suspension. While the criminal appeal was pending, the petitioner's husband expired on 05.08.2014 and the criminal appeal accordingly abated qua the petitioner's husband and is still pending qua the other accused persons. The petitioner informed the respondents regarding the death of her husband on 03.09.2014 and prayed that all consequential benefits of the services may be given to her. The petitioner's representation remained pending with the respondent until she received a letter on 22.07.2016 issued by Executive Engineer 28th Division, IGNP, Phalodi while informing the petitioner that no proceedings were pending against her late husband and therefore, until the higher authority take the final decision, the representation of the petitioner could not be decided. However, the petitioner came to know that by order dated 15.12.2016 Chief Engineer, Bikaner of the respondent department dismissed the husband of the petitioner from the services on account of him being convicted by the court below under Rule 19(i) of the CCA Rules.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent could not have invoked Rule 19(1) of the CCA Rules against the petitioner's husband on 15.12.2016 as he had already died on 05.08.2014 and no adverse order could have been passed by the respondents after the death of the husband of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hirabai Bhikanrao Dehmukh & Anr. v. State of Maharahstra & Ors., 1986 Lab LC 248, the relevant portion of this judgment, reads as under :-

"The provisions with regard to dismissal, removal and suspension of the civil servant do not permit holding of any further enquiry into the conduct of such a civil servant after his death. Such proceeding are intended to impose departmental penalty and would abate by reason of the death of civil serva