JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. T.K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for forbearing the respondents from withholding any retiral benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner was serving the Tripura State Cooperative Bank Limited as the Officer Grade-IV and has retired from the service on 30.04.2010. But till now the petitioner has not received his retiral benefits viz. the death cum retirement gratuity, group Insurance returns, leave salary and the arrears salary. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been facing a disciplinary proceeding on the charge of embezzlement of fund while he was serving at Mohanpur branch of the said Bank. By the order dated 25.05.2000, the petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter by the order dated 02.06.2001, the suspension order was revoked. The petitioner has discharged his duty till retirement. By the memorandum dated 22.08.2000 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] the following imputations of misconduct have been levelled against the petitioner: “Article-1 That the said Shri Khagendra Ch. Deb, Grade-IV Officer (under suspension) in collaboration with Branch Manager Late Manindra Ch. Debbarma had willfully misappropriated the amount as noted against each item through falsification in records of Branch and thus violated the provision of Clause No. 44(b), 44(c) of Service Rules of the bank as in force. (1) Fraud/misappropriation committed through issuance of false Demand Draft. The Demand Draft were shown as issued on Agartala Branch but not entered into Cash Book, Head Office Ledger, Transfer Ledger etc. Though inter branch advice was issued in support of the D/D for payment but copy of the advice was not sent to the Head Office only to avoid knowledge of the Head Office. DD No. Dated Amount(Rs.) Issued favouring (1) 6970 04.02.99 40,000/- Dhaniram Das (2) 6758 03.05.99 1,50,000/- Dhariram Debbarma (3) 6786 24.09.99 4,000/- Uttam Debbarma (4) 6787 24.09.99 9,500/- Tapan Singha (5) 6791 24.09.99 8,500/- 2,21,000/- Uttam Kr. Saha (Rupees three lakhs sixteen thousand) only. (2) Fraud in respect of Cash Certificate :- (a) Committed fraud through issuance of Cash Certificate in the name of one Shri Pradip Karmakar for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only. The aforesaid position is arrived at on preliminary enquiry and more involvement may be detected after further enquiry. Saha (Rupees three lakhs sixteen thousand) only. (2) Fraud in respect of Cash Certificate :- (a) Committed fraud through issuance of Cash Certificate in the name of one Shri Pradip Karmakar for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only. The aforesaid position is arrived at on preliminary enquiry and more involvement may be detected after further enquiry. Article-II That the said Shri Khagendra Ch. Deb involved himself in such activities as narrated in Article-I which is beyond his authority and is a breach of trust on the part of a employee of the bank which he ought not do, which caused utter damage of properties & Goodwill of the bank being a safe custodian of cash and properties of the public. Thus, the said Shri Deb has violated the Clause No. 44(a), 44(b) & 44(c) of the Service Rules of the bank.” 4. The petitioner did not file the written statement of defence on the plea that the particulars of documents as was catalogued in his petition dated 08.09.2000 was not supplied by the respondents. In the meanwhile, a specific police case being Sidhai P/S Case No. 43 of 2000 was registered under Section 409/34 of the IPC in respect of the said transaction. 5. Mr. T.K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has informed this court that the trial of the said police case, [corresponding to GR No. 603/2002] is pending in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala for last 14 years. The petitioner had agitated before the disciplinary authority not to continue with the departmental proceeding till the said criminal trial is conducted. Be that as it may, this court is not aware whether for the said approach or not, but the disciplinary proceeding did not taken ahead for all these years. Now the petitioner is in a penurious situation as he has not received any proceeds on his retirement from the respondents. 6. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that the prayer for stalling the disciplinary proceeding till the criminal trial is complete will not be pressed by the petitioner further, if the disciplinary proceeding is drawn to its logical end within a shortest possible time. 7. Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has acceded by stating that this writ petition may be disposed of directing the respondents to complete the departmental proceeding within a reasonable time. 8. 7. Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has acceded by stating that this writ petition may be disposed of directing the respondents to complete the departmental proceeding within a reasonable time. 8. Having regard to the nature of the charge and the delay that has occurred already, this court is of the view that this is not a case where the disciplinary proceeding can be interfered in terms of inordinate delay. Hence, the respondents are directed to complete the disciplinary proceeding within 3(three) months, if necessary, on the basis of day by day inquiry, but before that the respondents shall supply the documents as asked for by the petitioner immediately, so that the petitioner can file the written statement within 7(seven) days from the date of receipt of such documents. The respondents shall supply those documents within 10(ten) days from the day of receipt the copy of this order from the petitioner. 9. The respondents shall engage the inquiry officer forthwith with a direction to complete the proceeding within the time-frame as aforesaid. The petitioner shall cooperate and represent on all those days as would be appointed by the inquiry officer. It is further made clear that if the disciplinary proceeding cannot be completed within a period of 3(three) months, the memorandum dated 22.08.2000 [Annexures-3 & 4 together] shall stand automatically quashed. However, if at the instance of the petitioner the inquiry is stalled or delayed, the said period shall be added to the time as stipulated in this order. With this observation and direction, this petition stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.