M/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA P. LTD.versusGIRISH V & ORS.

                       [2014] 1 S.C.R. 758


A          M/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA P. LTD.
                                 v.
                         GIRISH V & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 763-768 of 2014)
                       JANUARY 21, 2014
B
          [T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]

       Service law: Disciplinary proceedings - Stay of
  disciplinary proceedings pending the decision of criminal
C case in respect of same incident - Vacation of stay- Propriety
  of - Held: The disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in
  a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence
  of any legal bar to such simultaneity - While seriousness of
  the charge leveled against the employee is a consideration
D for stay of disciplinary proceedings, 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 has to keep in mind the fact
E that departmental proceedings cannot be suspended
  indefinitely or delayed unduly 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 question that arose for consideration in these
F appeals was whether the High Court so also the courts
  below were right in holding that the disciplinary
  proceedings initiated by the appellant-company against
  its employees (respondents) ought to remain stayed
  pending conclusion of the criminal case instituted against
G the respondents in respect of the very same incident.

        Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

        HELD: 1. While there is no legal bar to the holding
H                               758
 STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA P. LTD. v. GIRISH V           759

of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial        A
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      B
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         c
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              0
conclusion of the on-going disciplinary proceedings en
the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in
the interest of the employees. [Para 13] [770-C-G]
     2. The charges leveled against the respondents in        E
the instant case were under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324,
356, 427, 504, 506, 114 read with Section 149 l.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     F
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        G
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 did not
suggest any complication or complexity either on facts
or law. That apart the respondents had already disclosed      H
   760      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 was filed on 20th August, 2011.
  The charges were framed on 20th December, 2011. The
B 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
c 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
0
  interest of the appellant-company nor the respondents
  who are under suspension and surviving on subsistence
  allowance. The number of accused implicated in the case
  is also very large. It is not that the incident must be taken
  to be false only because such a large number could not
E 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
F 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. [Paras 14, 15]
G [770-H; 771-A-H; 772-A]
       3. In the circumstances and taking into consideration
  all aspects as also keeping in view the fact that all the
  three courts below have exercised their discretion in
H favour of staying the on-going disciplinary proceedings,
  STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA P. LTD. v. GIRISH V           761

the said order cannot be vacated straightaway. Interests       A
of justice would be sufficiently served if the Court dealing
with the criminal charges against the respondents is
directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as
possible but in any case within a period of one year from
the date of this order. The trial court will take effective    B
steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and
are examined. The Court may for that purpose adjourn
the case for no more than a fortnight every time an
adjournment is necessary. The accused in the criminal
case should co-operate with the trial Court for an early       c
completion of the proceedings. This is so because
experience has shown that trials often linger on for a long
time on account of non-availability of the defense lawyers
to cross-examine the witnesses or on account of
adjournments sought by them on the flimsiest of the            0
grounds. All that needs to be avoided. In case, however,
the trial is not completed within the period of one year
from the date of this order, despite the steps which the
trial court has been directed to take the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the respondents shall be         E
resumed and concluded by the Inquiry Officer concerned.
The impugned orders shall in that case stand vacated
upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of the
order. [Para 16] [772-B-G]

     Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport        F
Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miyan (1997) 2 SCC 699: 1996
(8) Suppl. SCR 941; Divisional Controller, Kamataka State
Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao (2012) 1 SCC
442: 2011 (14) SCR 1089; Capt. M Paul Anthony v. Bharat
Gold Mines Ltd (1999) 3 SCC 679: 1999 (2) SCR 257; HPCL        G
v. SaNesh Berry (2005) 10 SCC 471: 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR
834; State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena 1996(6) SCC 417:
1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 68 - relied on.

                                                               H
    762      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014) 1 S.C.R.


A                        Case Law Reference:

          1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 941       relied on       Para 9

          2011 (14) SCR 1089            relied on       Para 9

          1999 (2) SCR 257               relied on      Para 10
B
          2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 834        relied on      Para 11

          996 (7) Suppl. SCR 68          relied on      Para 12

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
C 763-768 of 2014.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 15.06.2012 of the High
    Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition Nos. 8487-
    8491 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 9381 of 2012.
D
        S.S. Ramdas, Shanta Kumar Mahale, Rajesh Mahale,
    Pradip Sawakar, Kanakraj for the Appellant.

        E.C. Vidya Sagar, Kheyali Sarkar, Ananthram for the
    Respondents.
E
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.

       2. The short question that falls for determination in these
F appeals is whether the High Court so also the Courts below
  were right in holding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated
  by the appellant-company against its employees (respondents
  herein) ought to remain stayed pending conclusion of the
  criminal case instituted against the respondents in respect of
G the very same incident.

      3. The appellant-company is engaged in the manufacture
  of automobile parts in the name and style of M/s Stanzen
  Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. while the respondents are workmen
H engaged by the appellant in connection with the said business.
  STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA P. LTD. v. GIRISH V               763
              [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
It is not in dispute that the employees of the appellant-company   A
including the respondents are governed by Standing Orders
certified under Industrial Employees (Standing Orders) Act,
1946.

      4. The appellant's case is that on 19th March, 2011 at
                                                                   8
about 10.30 p.m. the respondents with the help of other Trade
Union functionaries stage managed an accident making it
appear as if an employee by the name of Mr. Kusumadhara
had slipped and fallen in the press area. The incident was, it
is alleged, used as a ruse by the respondents who rushed to
the place of alleged fall only to create a ruckus. Appellant's     C
further case is that although Mr. Kusumadhara had not
sustained any injury, he was sent to the hospital in the
ambulance of the appellant-company and that instead of
resuming the work after the alleged incident, the respondents
stopped the production activity and started abusing their          D
superiors, damaged property of the company and even
assaulted senior managerial personnel. These acts of
indiscipline created an atmosphere of fear and tension in the
factory and brought the production activity to a grinding halt.
Senior managerial personnel injured in the incident were,          E
according to the appellant, unable to report for work for about
15 days on account of assault on them.

    5. Taking note of the incident and the acts of indiscipline
which amounted to misconduct under several provisions of the       F
Standing Order, the competent authority placed the
respondents under suspension and issued charge-sheets to
them. The explanation submitted by the respondents having
been found unsatisfactory, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated
and Enquiry Officers appointed to enquire into the allegations     G
against the respondents. The Presenting Officers have
examined one witness in. each one of the enquiries.

     6. The incident in question was it appears reported even
to the police by one of the employees of the appellant-company
who was a witness to the same, leading to the registration of      H
    764      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A Crime No.173/2011 in Ramanagara Rural Police Station for
  offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 356,
  427, 504, 506, 114 read with Section 149 1.P.C. A charge-sheet
  was filed pursuant to the said report and investigation is
  pending in which the reSpondents are accused of committing
B the offences mentioned above.

       7. While the disciplinary enquiry and the criminal case
  were both pending, the respondents filed Original Suits No.326-
  331 of 2011 in which they prayed for a permanent injunction
C against the appellant and the Enquiry Officers restraining them
  from proceeding with the enquiry pending conclusion of the
  criminal case. Interlocutory Applications seeking temporary
  injunctions in each one of the suits against the on-going enquiry
  were also filed in the said suits. The applications though
  opposed by the appellant-company were allowed by the
D Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Ramanagara by an order
  dated 13th October, 2011 staying the domestic enquiry pending
  against the respondents till the disposal of criminal case in C.C.
  No.1005 of 2011.
E       8. Misc. Appeals No.56/2011 and 61/2011 filed by the
  appellant against the said order before the Principal Senior
  Civil Judge and CJM Ramanagara having failed, the appellant
  filed Writ Petitions No.8487-8491 of 2012 (GM-CPC) and W.P.
  No.9381 of 2012 (GM-CPC) before the High Court of
F Karnataka which petitions too failed and have been dismissed
  by the High Court in terms of a common order dated 15th June,
  2012 impugned in the present appeals. In the result the
  disciplinary enquiry pending against the respondents remained
  stayed pending conclusion of the criminal trial. The present
G appeals, as noticed earlier, assailed the correctness of the said
  judgment and orders.
       9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some
  length. The only question that falls for determination in the
  above backdrop is whether the Courts below were justified in
H staying the on-going disciplinary proceedings pending
  STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA P. LTD. v. GIRISH V                765
              [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
conclusion of the trial in the criminal case registered and fil~d    A
against the respondents. The answer to that question would
primarily depend upon whether there is any legal bar to the
continuance of the disciplinary proceedings against the
employees based on an incident which is also the subject
matter of criminal case against such employees. It would also        B
depend upon the nature of the charges in the criminal case filed
against the employees and whether the case involves
complicated questions of law and fact. The possibility of
prejudice to the employees accused in the criminal case on
account of the parallel disciplinary enquiry going ahead is          c
another dimension which will have to be addressed while
permitting or staying such disciplinary enquiry proceedings. The
law on the subject is fairly well- settled for similar issues and
has often engaged the attention of this Court in varied fact
situations. Although the pronouncements of this Court have           0
stopped short of prescribing any strait-jacket formula for
application to all cases the decisions of this Court have
identified the broad approach to be adopted in such matters
leaving it for the Courts concerned to take an appropriate view
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case that            E
comes up before them. Suffice it to say that there is no short
cut solution to the problem. What is, however, fairly well settled
and was not disputed even before us is that there is no legal
bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and a criminal
trial simultaneously. In Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miyan (1997)             F
2 SCC 699, this Court declared that the purpose underlying
departmental proceedings is distinctly different from the
purpose behind prosecution of offenders for commission of
offences by them. While criminal prosecution for an offence is
launched for violation of a duty that the offender owes to the       G.
society, departmental enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline
and efficiency in service. The difference in the standard of proof
and the application of the rules of evidence to one and
inapplicability to the other was also explained and highlighted
only to explain that conceptually the two operate in different       H
    766      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) 1 S.C.R.

A spheres and are intended to serve distinctly different purposes.
  The relatively recent decision of this Court in Divisional
  Controller,     Karnataka        State     Road       Transport
  Corporation v. M. G. Vittal Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442, is a timely
  reminder of the principles that are applicable in such situations
B succinctly summed up in the following words:

          "(i) There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on
          simultaneously.
          (ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary
C         proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the
          defence of the employee in the criminal case may not
          be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available
          only in cases involving complex questions of facts and
          law.
D
          (iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to
          unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The
          interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer
          clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary
          proceedings.
E
          (iv) Departmental Proceedings can go on simultaneously
          to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings
          are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in
          both the proceedings is common. n
F
       10. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Capt.
  M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd, (1999) 3 SCC 679
  where this Court reviewed the case law on the subject to identify
  the following broad principles for application in the facts and
G circumstances of a given case:
          "(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a
          criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no
          bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though
          separately.
H
  STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA P. LTD. v. GIRISH V              767
              [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case    A
    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       B
    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 C
     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 · D
    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.
                                                                  E
    (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal
    is being unduly delayed, the departmentai 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 honor may be vindicated      F
    and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid
    of him at the earliest. n

     11. In HPCL v. Sarvesh Berry (2005) 10 SCC 471 the
respondent was charged with possessing assets                     G
disproportionate to his known sources of income. The question
was whether disciplinary proceedings should remain stayed
pending a criminal charge being examined by the competent
criminal Court. Allowing the appeal of the employer-corporation
this Court held:                                                  H
    768       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) 1 S.C.R.


A         "A crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of
          omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to
          maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public
          service. It would. therefore. be expedient that the
          disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed
B         as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable
          to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the
          departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed
          pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent
          officer. Each case requires to be considered in the
c         backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would
          be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental
          enquiry and trial bf a criminal case unless the charge in
          the criminal trial is of a grave nature involving
          complicated questions of fact and law ..... Under these
          circumstances. what is required to be seen is whether the
D
          departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the
          delinquent in his defense at the trial in a· criminal case.
          It is always a question of fact to be considered in each
          case depending on its own facts and circumstances."

E                                                (emphasis supplied)

          12. 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
F 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
G 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. In Paul Anthony
H
  STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA P. LTD. v. GIRISH V                   769
              [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
(supra) this Court went a step further to hold that departmental        A
proceedings can be resumed and proceeded even when they
may have been stayed earlier in cases where the criminal trial
does not make any headway. To the same effect is the decision
of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena 1996(6) SCC
417, where this Court reiterated that there was no legal bar for        B
both proceedings to go on simultaneously unless there is a
likelihood of the employee suffering prejudice in the criminal
trial. What is significant is that the likelihood of prejudice itself
is hedged by providing that not only should the charge be grave
but even the case must involve complicated questions of law             c
and fact. Stay of proceedings at any rate cannot and should
not be a matter of course. The following passage is in this
regard apposite:

     "there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on
     simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it D
     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, is a matter to be determined
     having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given E
     case and that no hard and fast 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. F
     This ground has. however. been hedged in bv 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 G
     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. While it is not possible to
     enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay H



                                                                 \
    770      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 1 $.C.R.


A         of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to
          emphasize 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. Stav of disciplinarv proceedings cannot be.
B         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. . .. Indeed, in
          such cases, it is all the more in the interest of the charged
c         officer that the proceedings are expeditiously concluded.
          Delay in such cases really works against him."

                                                (emphasis supplied)

         13. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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.

       14. The charges leveled against the respondents in the
  instant case are under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 356, 427,
H 504, 506, 114 read with Section 149 l.P.C. These are no
  STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA P. LTD. v. GIRISH V                  771
              [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
ordinary offences being punishable with imprisonment which             A
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             B
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.                 c
       15. 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          D
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           E
 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          F
an indefinitely long period. Such inordinate delay is neither in
the interest of the appellant-company 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           G
to be false 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         H
    772      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A 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.
B       16. In the circumstances and taking into consideration all
  aspects mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact that
  all the three Courts below ha.ve exercised their discretion in
  favour of staying the on-going disciplinary proceedings, we do
  not consider it fit to vacate the said order straightaway. Interests
C of justice would, in our opinion, be sufficiently served if we direct
  the Court dealing with the criminal charges against the
  respondents to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as
  possible but in any case within a period of one year from the
  date of this order. We hope and trust that the Trial Court will
D take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served,
  appear and are examined. The Court may for that purpose
  adjourn the case for no more than a fortnight every time an
  adjournment is necessary. We also expect the accused in the
  criminal case to co-operate with the trial Court for an early
E completion of the proceedings. We say so because experience
   has shown that trials often linger on for a long time on account
  of non-availability of the defense lawyers to cross-examine the
  witnesses or on account of adjournments sought by them on
  the flimsiest of the grounds. All that needs to be avoided. In
F case, however, the trial is not completed within the period of
   one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which
   the Trial Court has been directed to take the disciplinary
   proceedings initiated against the respondents shall be resumed
   and concluded by the Inquiry Officer concerned. The impugned
G orders shall in that case stand vacated upon expiry of the period
   of one year from the date of the order.
         17. In the result, we allow these appeals but only in part
    and to the extent indicated above. The parties are left to bear
    their own costs.
H D.G.                                       Appeals partly allowed.