IMPORTANT POINT
Acquittal in a criminal case does not bar the initiation of departmental proceedings under the relevant service rules, especially when the employee is charged with a serious breach while on duty.

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. 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 impugn