JUDGMENT By the Court.—Notice on behalf of the respondents has been accepted by Sri Abdul Moin. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Anil Srivastava, Sri Abdul Moin for the respondents and perused the record. 3. With the consent of the parties’ counsel, the petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 4. The respondent, a Booking Clerk in the Railways, who was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the charge of misappropriation of government funds, has been inflicted the punishment of removal from service, with recovery of an amount of Rs. 3.5 lacs. 5. Against the order of punishment, the respondent preferred the Original Application No. 206 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of on 2.2.2003 with a direction that the pending enquiry be completed within a period of four months. 6. The enquiry could be completed in a little period of more than four months but less than five months. The punishment order became the subject matter of challenge in the present Original Application, in which the punishment order has been set aside by the Tribunal mainly on the following two counts : (i) the order of punishment was not passed within the period prescribed in the original application; and (ii) the documents which were relied upon, were not got verified by the maker of the documents. 7. So far the first point is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents does not seriously object to the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that the delay of few days was not such so as to set aside the order of punishment only on the ground that time was not got extended from the Tribunal. 8. We also feel that though when a Court or Tribunal prescribes any time limit for concluding the enquiry or for doing a particular act, the government or its functionaries are not at liberty to violate that order, but whether the delay which has occurred is such so as to nullify the entire proceedings, will be a question which may be considered in the facts and circumstances of each and every case. It is also to be considered that when a Court or Tribunal directs for concluding the enquiry within the time prescribed, it would be obliged to consider the reasons for delay and if it is found that the delay has occurred because of any genuine and unavoidable reason, the delay deserves to be condoned. 9. We, therefore, find that merely because some delay has occurred in passing the present order of punishment, the entire punishment order was not liable to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. In regard to the next plea, learned counsel for the respondents, however, made an effort before this Court to say that the makers of the documents were called by the enquiry officer but they did not turn up. However, this plea does not find support from the order passed by the Tribunal, wherein in Para-9, the Tribunal has observed as under : “Principles of natural justice though cannot be put in a straightjacket formula, yet any document produced in the enquiry is to be authenticated by its maker by calling the witness and affording a reasonable opportunity to applicant to cross-examine him. Here in the case the inspection team consisting of Choubey, who has not been called in the enquiry yet the documents prepared by him without being verified and authenticated have been relief upon to hold applicant guilty and also to punish him. This has deprived applicant a reasonable opportunity to defend, which is in contravention of principles of natural justice. The decision of the Apex Court in S.B. Ramesh and Hardwarilal (supra) hold the field and apply on all fours being a binding precedent. The decision of the Tribunal in Latoor Singh (supra) also covers the issue. On this count also the enquiry gets vitiated.” 11. In view of the fact that the punishment order has been set aside on the aforesaid two counts and not on the merits of the charges nor there is any finding that the charges levelled against the respondent do not stand proved by the material on record, we find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the liberty should have been given to the department for conducting the enquiry afresh from the stage where the fault was committed. 12. 12. We, therefore, though do uphold the order of the Tribunal in so far it sets aside the punishment order on the ground that the enquiry was not held in accordance with law, but modify the same by giving liberty to the petitioners to hold the enquiry afresh in accordance with law from the stage of oral enquiry. 13. The enquiry so conducted shall be completed within a maximum period of three months, subject to cooperation of the respondent. In case the respondent seeks any adjournment, the period of such adjournment shall be excluded from the time schedule. 14. We further direct that on the reinstatement of the respondent into service in pursuance of setting aside the order of punishment, he would not be entitled to any arrears of salary or difference of salary for the period commencing from the date of the order of removal till the date of reinstatement, which amount shall depend upon the out come of the enquiry. 15. The writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. ————