Hon'ble PANWAR, J.—By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 26.10.1996 (Annex.29) terminating the services of the petitioner's late husband Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma, has been challenged by the petitioner after death of the Govt. employee whose services came to be terminated on 26.10.1996.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this writ petition are that the petitioner's husband Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma while in employment of the respondent Police Department on the post of Constable voluntarily remained absent without leave and therefore, the respondents initiated inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the CCA Rules' hereinafter) against the police constable Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma. A memorandum of charges was served on him and inquiry officer on the basis of the material placed before it, by inquiry report Annex.28 held that the petitioner's husband Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma while working as police constable with the respondent police department voluntarily remained absent from duty without leave for 57 days and as such the charges levelled against him stood proved. By order Annex.29, the Disciplinary Authority terminated the services of the delinquent employee Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma on the ground that he was habitual absentee from the duty voluntarily without leave for the period mentioned in the order impugned dated 26.10.1996. Subsequent thereto, about after three years, the delinquent police constable Kailash Chandra Sharma expired on 30.04.1999 and thereafter the petitioner who is widow of deceased police constable Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma, has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order terminating the services of her late husband.

3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent State and supporting the order impugned it has been averred that the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches and the delinquent police constable Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma has accepted the punishment imposed by terminating his services as the order terminating services is appealable and thereafter the remedy of review before His Excellency the Governor is provided by the Statute but since the husband of the petitioner during his life time has accepted the finding of the inquiry officer and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and therefore, now it is not open for the petitioner after the death of her husband to challenge the same.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's husband Late Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma was not served with the copy of the order terminating his service Annex.29 dated 26.10.1996 and therefore, the petitioner could not know that her husband's services were terminated. It is further contended that the inquiry officer has not recorded finding on each charge and therefore, the report of inquiry officer is neither reasoned nor speaking so also the order of disciplinary authority is unreasoned and non-speaking inasmuch as the inquiry officer did not even discuss the evidence produced in defence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Zaheer Hussain vs. Union of India and Others (1999) 9 SCC 86, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs. Rawel Singh 2008 AIR SCW 2099 and a decision of this Court in Abhay Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3441/2003 decided on 14.08.2006.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the petitioner has concealed various material facts by the instant writ petition inasmuch as the petitioner came with a case that the order terminating services of her late husband was neither served to her late husband during his life