ORDER : 1. By way of present writ petition, while indirectly challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents vide notice dated 11.01.2021, the petitioner has claimed a relief that the proceedings in furtherance thereto be kept in abeyance until criminal proceedings pursuant to the FIR No.128/2020 culminates. 2. During the course of submission, Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of harping upon his challenge to the very initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, confined his case to continuance of the proceedings, until the criminal case, which the petitioner is facing for the same delinquency, is finally decided. 3. The facts appropos the relief claimed are, that the petitioner, Constable was trapped red-handed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, while accepting/taking an amount of Rs.5,000/- as bribe (as alleged by the prosecution) from one Bhag Singh. 4. Consequently, a case came to be registered by the Anti- Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur being Case No.128 dated 16.07.2020 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed in the competent Court, whereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (Rural), the disciplinary authority proceeded to launch a departmental inquiry against the petitioner by way of serving a notice dated 11.01.2021, along with memorandum of charges and statement of allegation. 6. 5. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed in the competent Court, whereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (Rural), the disciplinary authority proceeded to launch a departmental inquiry against the petitioner by way of serving a notice dated 11.01.2021, along with memorandum of charges and statement of allegation. 6. The sole charge framed against the petitioner in the inquiry under challenge reads thus:- ^vki fnukad 15-07-2020 dks iqfyl Fkkuk cki esa inLFkkfir FksA iqfyl Fkkuk cki esa ifjoknh Jh jk/kkfd'ku iq= jk;flagjke tkfr vksM fuoklh jkojk iqfyl Fkkuk cki us ,d eqdnek ntZ djokdj crk;k fd ^^eSa Hkxflag iq= lksguflag jktiwr fuoklh Vsdjk ds V;qcosy ij dke djus x;k Fkk] ysfdu 15 fnu ckn esa eSaus V;qcosy ekfyd dks dke djus ls euk dj fn;kA blds 5 fnu ckn eSa ogk ij lkeku ysus ds fy;s x;k rks Hkxflag o mlds iq= rstflag] 'kEHkqflag] v.knflag lHkh us esjs lkFk [ksr esa ekjihV dhA ftlls esjs flj esa [kwu vk x;k o eSa csgks'k gks x;kA csgks'kh dh gkyr esa esjs dks vEckyky us xkMh esa cSBkdj cki yk;kA mDr lHkh us esjs dks V;qcosy ij tcjnLrh dke djkus ds fy;s ck/; fd;k o esjk ,d lksus dk yaqx fxj x;kA** oxsjk ij izdj.k la[;k 155@2020 /kkjk 143] 341] 323@34 Hkknl iqfyl Fkkuk cki esa ntZ gksdj vuqla/kku vki }kjk fd;k tk jgk FkkA vki }kjk nkSjkus vuqla/kku vizkFkhZ Hkxflag ls muds yM+ds dk uke tqeZ ls gVkus ds ,ot esa ikap gtkj :i;s fj'or dh ekax dhA ftl ij ifjoknh }kjk Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks tks/kiqj esa vkids fo:) f'kdk;r dh xbZA ifjoknh }kjk izLrqr f'kdk;r ij fnukad 15-07-2020 dks vkids dCts ls Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks] tks/kiqj dh Vhe }kjk Hkxflag mQZ Hkxokuflag ls fj'or jkf'k 5000@& :i;s ysrs gq, fj'or jkf'k vkids dCts ls cjken dj Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjksa tks/kiqj }kjk vkidks fxjrkj dj vkids fo:) izdj.k la[;k 128 fnukad 16-07-2020 /kkjk 7 Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e 2018 Fkkuk ,lhch] lhih,l] t;iqj esa ntZ fd;k tkdj can vuqla/kku ds vkids fo:) U;k;ky; esa vkjksi i= is'k fd;k x;k] blls lacaf/kr lekpkj fofHkUu lekpkj i=ksa esa izeq[krk ls izdkf'kr gqvk gSA bl izdkj vki }kjk iqfyl vkpj.k fu;eksa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k] ftlls iqfyl foHkkx dh Noh /kwfey gqbZ gSaA vkidk mDr d`R; ?kksj ykijokgh] drZO;foeq[krk] LoSPNkpkfjrk] inh; dÙkZO;ksa ds nq:i;ksx] iqfyl vkpj.k fu;eksa ds mYya?ku ,oa vuq'kklughurk dk |kSrd gSA^^ 7. Mr. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the inquiry in question is based upon the singular fact that the petitioner had been apprehended by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and argued that the respondent Department is not having any supportive material or witness who can depose or prove the allegation that the petitioner had received Rs.5,000/- as bribe from said Bhag Singh. 8. While maintaining that the disciplinary inquiry in question firstly cannot continue as the respondent – Department is having no material in relation to the delinquency or the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act, he argued that even if for a moment it is presumed that the Department may have some incriminating material in relation to such delinquency or offence, continuation of such inquiry is bound to prejudice petitioner’s defence in the criminal trial, being faced by him pursuant to the FIR lodged by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. 9. While relying upon judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 , learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, the departmental inquiry cannot continue against the petitioner, regardless of the fact that the charges against the petitioner are grave in nature. 10. While conceding that there is no absolute law that the departmental inquiry in each case should be stayed, learned counsel argued that in the present factual backdrop, when the memorandum of charges records nothing but assertion of fact(s) relating to petitioner’s involvement in Case No.128/2020, the inquiry needs to be kept in abeyance. 11. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that if the interim order granted in petitioner’s favour on 15.02.2021 is not vacated and the respondents are not allowed to proceed with the inquiry, the respondents would be compelled/constrained to continue with an officer, who is not worthy of being retained in the services. He added that the employer cannot be asked to await decision of the trial for indefinite period, as the progression of the trial so also its conclusion is not in the hands of the State. 12. He added that the employer cannot be asked to await decision of the trial for indefinite period, as the progression of the trial so also its conclusion is not in the hands of the State. 12. He argued that the strictness of proof in the criminal trial is very high; whereas the same is not that stringent, when it comes to departmental inquiry and prayed that the respondents be permitted to proceed with the subject inquiry. 13. Learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the following judgments:- (i) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena & Ors. : (1996) 6 SCC 417 (ii) Stenzen Toyotestsu India Private Ltd. Vs. Girish V. & Ors. : (2014) 3 SCC 636 . 14. In order to examine the facts of the case in hands on the anvil of legal principles, it would be appropriate to first wade through the judgments cited by rival counsel, so as to draw a periphery within which this Court can tread or traverse. 15. Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 679 - “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) Departmental proceedings and proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 16. State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 417 - “14. It would be evident from the above decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be ’desirable’, ’advisable’ or ’appropriate’ to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. The staying of disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasised, is a matter disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasised, is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case ad that no hard and fat rules can enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested in the above questions as constitution a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is "that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced." This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Moreover, ’advisability’, ’desirability’ or ’propriety’, as the case may be, has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The ground indicated in D.C.M. and Tata Oil Mills is not also an invariable rule. It is only a factor which will go into the scales while judging the advisability or desirability of staying the disciplinary proceedings. The ground indicated in D.C.M. and Tata Oil Mills is not also an invariable rule. It is only a factor which will go into the scales while judging the advisability or desirability of staying the disciplinary proceedings. One of the contending consideration is that the disciplinary enquiry cannot be -and should not be delayed unduly. So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well-known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or persons holding high public offices involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality inspite of repeated advice and admonitions from this Court and the High Courts. If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interests of administration and good government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that the undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanor is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanor should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasise some of the important considerations in view of the fact that very often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above. 15. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above. 15. We are quite aware of the fact that not all the disciplinary proceedings are based upon true charges; some of them may be unfounded. It may also be that in some cases, charges are levelled with oblique motives. But these possibilities do not detract from the desirability of early conclusion of these proceedings. Indeed, in such cases, it is all the more in the interest of the charged officer that the proceedings are expeditiously concluded. Delay in such cases really works against him. 16. Now, let us examine the facts of the present case. The memo of charges against the respondent was served on him, alongwith the articles of charges, on 13.10.92. On 9.2.93, he submitted a detailed reply/defence statement, running into 90 pages, controverting the allegations levelled against him. The challan against him was filed on 15.5.93 in the criminal court. The respondent promptly applied to the Tribunal and got the disciplinary proceedings stayed. They remain stayed till today. The irregularities alleged against the respondent are of the year 1989. The conclusion of the criminal proceedings is nowhere in sight. (Each party blames, the other for the said delay and we cannot pronounce upon it in the absence of proper material before us.) More than six years have passed by. The charges were served upon the respondent about 4 years back. The respondent has already disclosed his defence in his elaborate and detailed statement filed on 9.2.93. There is no question of his being compelled to disclose his defence in the disciplinary proceedings which would prejudice him in a criminal case. The charges against the respondent are very serious. They pertain to misappropriation of public funds to the tune of more than Rupees one crore. The observation of the Tribunal that in the course of examination of evidence, new material may emerge against the respondent and he may be compelled to disclose his defence is, at best, a surmise - a speculator reason. We cannot accept it as valid. Though the respondent was suspended pending enquiry in May, 1990, the order has been revoked in October 1993. The respondent is continuing in office. We cannot accept it as valid. Though the respondent was suspended pending enquiry in May, 1990, the order has been revoked in October 1993. The respondent is continuing in office. It is in his interest and in the interest of good administration that the truth or falsity of the charges against him is determined promptly. To wit, if he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated early and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with appropriately without any avoidable delay. The criminal court may decide - whenever it does - whether the respondent is guilty of the offences charged and if so, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The interest of administration, however, cannot brooke any delay in disciplinary proceedings for the reasons indicated hereinabove. 17. There is yet another reason. The approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether offences registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act (and the Indian Penal Code, if any) are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the casea are entirely distinct and different. Staying of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal proceedings, to repeat, should not be matter of course but a considered decision. Even if stayed at one stage, the decision may require reconsideration if the criminal case gets unduly delayed.” 17. Stenzen Toyotestsu India Private Ltd. Vs. Girish V. & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 636 “13. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject for the legal position as emerging from the above pronouncements and the earlier pronouncements of this Court in a large number of similar cases is well settled that disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar to such simultaneity. It is also evident that while seriousness of the charge leveled against the employees is a consideration, the same is not by itself sufficient unless the case also involves complicated questions of law and fact. It is also evident that while seriousness of the charge leveled against the employees is a consideration, the same is not by itself sufficient unless the case also involves complicated questions of law and fact. Even when the charge is found to be serious and complicated questions of fact and law that arise for consideration, the Court will have to keep in mind the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly. 16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defense before the criminal Court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The Court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The Court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the on-going disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees. 17. The charges leveled against the respondents in the instant case are under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 356, 427, 504, 506, 114 read with Section 149 I.P.C. These are no ordinary offences being punishable with imprisonment which may extend upto 3 years besides fine. At the same time seriousness of the charge alone is not the test. What is also required to be demonstrated by the respondents is that the case involves complicated questions of law and fact. That requirement does not appear to be satisfied in an adequate measure to call for an unconditional and complete stay of the disciplinary proceedings pending conclusion of the trial. What is also required to be demonstrated by the respondents is that the case involves complicated questions of law and fact. That requirement does not appear to be satisfied in an adequate measure to call for an unconditional and complete stay of the disciplinary proceedings pending conclusion of the trial. The incident as reported in the first information report or as projected by the respondents in the suits filed by them does not suggest any complication or complexity either on facts or law. 18. That apart the respondents have already disclosed the defense in the explanation submitted by them before the commencement of the departmental enquiry in which one witness has been examined by each of the Enquiry Officers. The charge sheet, it is evident from the record, was filed on 20th August, 2011. The charges were framed on 20th December, 2011. The Trial Court has ever since then examined only three witnesses so far out of a total of 23 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. Going by the pace at which the Trial Court is examining the witnesses it would take another five years before the trial may be concluded. The High Court has in the judgment under appeal given five months to the Trial Court to conclude the trial. More than fifteen months has rolled by ever since that order, without the trial going anywhere near completion. Disciplinary proceedings cannot remain stayed for an indefinitely long period. Such inordinate delay is neither in the interest of the appellantcompany nor the respondents who are under suspension and surviving on subsistence allowance. The number of accused implicated in the case is also very large. We are not suggesting that the incident must be taken to be Page 16false only because such a large number could not participate in the incident. But there is a general tendency to spread the net wider and even implicate those who were not concerned with the commission of the offences or who even though present committed no overt act to show that they shared the common object of the assembly or be responsible for the riotous behaviour of other accused persons. Interest of such accused as may be innocent also cannot be ignored nor can they be made to suffer indefinitely just because some others have committed an offence or offences.” 18. Interest of such accused as may be innocent also cannot be ignored nor can they be made to suffer indefinitely just because some others have committed an offence or offences.” 18. Having perused the memorandum of charges served upon the petitioner and after considering the law on the subject, more particularly that has been laid down in the above referred judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the inquiry against the petitioner deserves to be kept on hold. The reasons are set out hereinfra. 19. It is noteworthy that the charge framed in the memorandum of charges is nothing but iteration or enunciation of the fact that the petitioner was caught red handed and is facing the criminal trial for the felony punishable under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. 20. In the opinion of this Court, it will be impracticable for the department to reach a finding because in a bid to prove the delinquency, the department will have to summon either the prosecution witnesses or the complainant, who are also star witnesses in the criminal trial. The fact that the petitioner had accepted the illegal gratification will be difficult nay impossible to be proved in absence of such witnesses and without the incriminating material which would be lying in the trial Court. Usually in the cases like the one in hands, wherein the Anti Corruption Bureau traps an employee, the witnesses and material belong to and remain in custody of the investigating agency or in the custody of the Trial Court. 21. The fact that the petitioner had demanded and accepted the amount from the complainant as bribe is a complicated question of fact to be determined by the enquiry officer, particularly when none of the police personnel were present at the time of the incident. Necessary evidence like voice recording, the currency notes used/recovered in the trap and all other evidence are not in possession of the respondents – they have practically no access to the incriminating evidence. 22. Unless the witnesses are examined – cross-examined before the Court, it is very difficult to unearth the facts. Such being the position, there is every likelihood that the erring officer may get a clean chit in the departmental inquiry in spite of the fact that there is cogent oral or occular evidence to prove his guilt or offence. 22. Unless the witnesses are examined – cross-examined before the Court, it is very difficult to unearth the facts. Such being the position, there is every likelihood that the erring officer may get a clean chit in the departmental inquiry in spite of the fact that there is cogent oral or occular evidence to prove his guilt or offence. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, continuance of the disciplinary inquiry is not appropriate. 23. Even from the petitioner’s perspective, if the inquiry is permitted to go on, there is every likelihood that the proceedings may be concluded in undue haste being swayed by the fact that the petitioner has been framed in anti-corruption case. If he is supposed to disclose his defence in the departmental proceeding, the prosecution witnesses will perhaps be premonished or forewarned and they will be on guard to face cross-examination. If the prosecution succeeds in its case, and the petitioner is held guilty, the work of the inquiry officer will be very easy – the respondents can even invoke powers under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and take appropriate action. Therefore, it is advisable and desirable also, to defer the departmental proceedings. 24. It is to be noted that in the case of Stenzen Toyotestsu India Private Ltd. (supra), having regard to the facts obtaining in that case, the Supreme Court had stayed the inquiry for a period of one year. Similar orders have been passed by the Supreme Court/High Courts. The case of Stenzen Toyotestsu India Private Ltd. (supra) was decided in January, 2014, the criminal case therein was registered against the employee on 19.03.2011 in relation to offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324 IPC etc. and charge-sheet had been filed on 20.08.2011. It was in such circumstances that the Supreme Court stayed the disciplinary proceedings for one year, when the High Court had already directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within 5 months. 25. As against this, the petitioner is facing trial under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act in a case registered by Anti-Corruption Bureau, which has apprehended the petitioner red-handed. 25. As against this, the petitioner is facing trial under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act in a case registered by Anti-Corruption Bureau, which has apprehended the petitioner red-handed. Since the fact that petitioner has accepted the bribe is to be proved by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on the basis of evidence, material and witnesses available with it, the conclusion of trial is in the domain of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, of course subject to availability of time of the Trial Court. 26. By way of order dated 15.02.2021, this Court has stayed the disciplinary proceedings, which were set in motion on 11.01.2021. The case against the petitioner in the competent court is still at its initial stage. 27. The sword of damocles cannot be kept hanging over the petitioner’s head over indefinite period. Even if the proceedings are to be stayed, they cannot be stayed ad infinitum or infinitely. In order to strike a balance between the petitioner’s rights of defence and zeal to protract the inquiry and State’s anxiety and concern to conclude the inquiry expeditiously and in order to ward off undue haste or inordinate delay, the writ petition is disposed of with the following timeline:- (i) The disciplinary proceedings shall remain stayed for a period of three years from today. (ii) Petitioner will be required to file his statement in defence/reply along with the list of witnesses (if any) within a period of 30 days from today. Such period is extendable by not more than 30 days for reasons to be recorded by the disciplinary authority, if facts and circumstances so warrant. (iii) After completion of three years, the disciplinary authority shall resume the proceedings by giving at least a 15 days’ notice to the delinquent/employee of his intentions so to do and to inform about the status of criminal case. (iv) It will be required of the petitioner - employee to place relevant material, including copies of the order-sheets/ proceedings of the Court, stage of the trial, list of witnesses and number of witnesses examined by that time and any other relevant information. (v) The petitioner will be free to make a request to adjourn the proceedings further, while indicating reasons and grounds for the same. (v) The petitioner will be free to make a request to adjourn the proceedings further, while indicating reasons and grounds for the same. (vi) The disciplinary authority in such event, shall independently apply his mind on the material placed and progression of the criminal case and decide as to whether the enquiry is required to be stayed any further. (vii) In case, the disciplinary authority is of the view that the enquiry is required to be kept on hold any further, he will keep the same in abeyance for a further period, not more than two years. (viii) On completion of such period (total five years), the disciplinary authority shall take up the proceedings by appointing an inquiry officer under intimation to the petitioner, who shall, then, proceed in accordance with law, while following procedure provided under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules of 1958. (ix) Needless to observe that if criminal case itself is decided either way, during the aforesaid period of three/five years, the disciplinary authority shall be free to resume the inquiry, of course while observing principles of natural justice. (x) Above time frame is a broad guideline and directory in nature; non adherence thereto will not per-se vitiate the proceedings. 28. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.