1. ' The petitioner is widow of late Abdul Waheed, who was an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Police Department. The departmental action was taken against him and he was dismissed from service vide order dated 3-8-2000. The departmental appeal was dismissed on 12-4-2005. Thereafter he did not challenge his dismissal order before the Service Tribunal. He died on 13-11-2008. On 21-1- 2013, the present petition was filed by the widow of the deceased Assistant Sub-Inspector claiming that apart from the departmental proceedings criminal proceedings were also initiated against her husband wherein he was acquitted, therefore, he should be symbolically restored in service and may not be treated as a dismissed employee. Through this petition, the widow of the deceased also seeks salary and other benefits of the deceased.
2. ' The counsel for the petitioner contends that once the deceased was acquitted from the criminal charge, the order of his dismissal from service based on such acquittal is a nullity in law and against such illegality no period of limitation applies. He also submitted that this is also a case of double jeopardy as the deceased was acquitted in criminal trial. The counsel for the petitioner was asked to read a passage from a case reported in 1995 SCM R 500. After reading such passage, the counsel for the petitioner concedes that this is not a case of double jeopardy but states that the order is a nullity against which no period of limitation is applicable. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the cases reported in 2007 SCM R 537, 2007 SCM R 729, 2002 SCM R 57 and 1991 SCM R 209, wherein disciplinary action was taken solely on the ground that civil servant was involved in criminal proceedings, the criminal act having no concern with the department. Obviously in such circumstance after his acquittal from criminal case the order of dismissal is not justified. These judgments, therefore, are distinguishable. Where criminal proceedings are initiated on the basis of misconduct and side by side departmental proceedings are also initiated on same grounds then mere acquittal in criminal case would not discharge an employee from the consequences of departmental proceedings. The outcome of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances has no bearing on the departmental proceedings.
3. ' Apart from the principle laid down in the case reported in 1995 SCM R 500, the husband of the petitioner, after his dismissal from service in 2000, did not challenge the same before the Service Tribunal. He died in 2008 and after five years of his death, his widow filed the present petition. The remedy of the deceased was available only before the Service Tribunal which he admittedly did not avail and his dismissal order attained finality. In such eventuality the proceedings filed by his widow are on the face of it not maintainable. This petition is, therefore, dismissed .