ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is the widow of deceased employee Dahyabhai Muljibhai Chauhan, who was working with the respondent-authorities as Unarmed Police Constable. The deceased was found in a drunken condition on a public road on 26.5.1995 at about 2.30 hours near Pathikashram at Nadiad. He was, therefore, prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 85(1)(iii) & 66(1)B of the Bombay Prohibition Act and Sections 110 & 117 of the Bombay Police Act. He came to be proceeded against departmentally also and was found to be guilty of misconduct, in the departmental proceedings. However, the criminal Court gave him benefit of doubt and recorded his acquittal.
1.1 After recording the finding of guilt of misconduct, an order of dismissal was passed. The said order of dismissal came to be challenged by preferring a departmental appeal, which came to be dismissed. Against that, a revision application was preferred, which also came to be dismissed. This happened on 1.5.2006 The employee expired on 20.6.2007 Thereafter, the widow of the employee i.e present petitioner preferred second revision application before the Government, which came to be filed by an order dated 2.3.2010 indicating that there is no provision for second revision and, therefore, cannot be entertained. Thereafter, the widow has preferred present petition.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Kapadia for the petitioner tried to convince the Court by stating that in criminal proceedings, the petitioner's husband came to be acquitted and on the same set of evidence, a finding of guilt of misconduct is recorded by the departmental authority and, therefore, this petition may be entertained.
3. The petition is opposed to by learned A.G.P Mr. Pathak.
4. It is now a settled proposition of law that acquittal in a criminal proceedings may not have consequential effect on departmental proceedings, since both the proceedings are decided on different principles of proof. In criminal proceedings, strict proof beyond reasonable doubt is expected; whereas in the departmental proceedings strict proof is not a parameter and the proceedings are decided on the principles of preponderance of probability and, therefore, acquittal of the deceased employee in criminal trial cannot be a ground to entertain this petition. In fact, if the judgment of the trial Court is seen, acquittal is recorded on account of failure on the part of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner's husband was given the benefit of doubt by the criminal Court.
5. Another important factor that requires to be considered is that the employee's revision came to be decided on 1.5.2006, which he had accepted and the decision attained finality. This is observed for the reason that the deceased employee did not challenge the finding given in the departmental proceedings till he expired after one year on 20.6.2007 Thus, the personal cause of action dies with the person [actio personalis moritur-cum-persona] and the petitioner cannot now seek to revive the same. Even on merits, the learned advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to bring home the case.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition must fail and stands dismissed.