JUDGMENT Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. (Oral) The office defect is overruled. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.129 of 2020 in dismissing the writ petition with certain observations, the petitioner is in appeal. 3. The case of the appellant is that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous. The appellant has been put under suspension for more than a year but the departmental proceedings are not commenced. Therefore, his suspension is bad. 4. The same is countered by the learned counsel for respondents before this Court as well as before the learned Single Judge. It is pleaded by the respondents that a charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant-writ petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. It is pending trial. It is only because the matter is pending trial that the suspension order is continued. 5. Under these circumstances, the plea of the appellant that he is innocent and no departmental inquiry has been initiated, cannot be accepted. In view of the pendency of the criminal case, there is no error committed by the respondents that calls for any interference. 6. Under these circumstances, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the respondent no.4 to conclude the inquiry within a period of six months, in our considered view, is inappropriate. There is no ground for fixation of time to complete the departmental inquiry especially when the delinquent is facing a criminal trial. The respondents are, therefore, at liberty to conclude the inquiry after the conclusion of the trial. By putting a condition on the respondent no.4 to conclude the inquiry within six months, in our considered view, would lead to gross miscarriage of justice. 6. Hence, by deleting the direction of the learned Single Judge who directed the respondent no.4 to conclude the inquiry within six months, the appeal is disposed off. 7. Rest of the order of the learned Single Judge is undisturbed.