Expiry of a directory timeline for concluding disciplinary proceedings does not warrant an interim stay of the inquiry.

The Applicant, an Indian Railway Service of Engineers (IRSE) officer, was issued a major penalty charge sheet dated 08.06.2018 for alleged corruption and illegal gratification while serving as Senior Divisional Engineer in Kota

He previously challenged this charge sheet in O.A. No. 702/2019, which the Tribunal disposed of on 15.02.2021, declining to quash the charges but directing the Disciplinary Authority to complete proceedings "as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months"

Claiming the Respondents failed to meet this timeline and violated the Railway Servants (DA) Rules, 1968, the Applicant filed O.A. No. 289/2024

During the pendency of that O.A., he filed the present Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 121/2025) seeking an interim direction to stay the disciplinary proceedings, citing the seven-year delay and a stay order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in a separate criminal matter (Deepak Badjatya v. State of Rajasthan)

1. Whether the direction to complete disciplinary proceedings "preferably within six months" constitutes a mandatory/binding deadline that warrants the termination or stay of such proceedings upon expiry

2. Whether an interim stay granted by a High Court in a criminal matter regarding the competence of investigating agencies (ACB vs. CBI) can be applied to stay departmental disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal

The Tribunal applied the principles of administrative law regarding the distinction between directory and mandatory judicial instructions.

It emphasized that use of the word "preferably" in a timeline for disciplinary proceedings does not create an absolute bar against continuing the inquiry after the period expires

It also followed the principle that departmental proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings; thus, a stay in a criminal investigation does not automatically translate to a stay in a disciplinary matter unless specifically ordered by a competent forum

The Tribunal observed that the order dated 15.02.2021 did not set a "binding/firm deadline" but used the term "preferably," which granted the authorities reasonable leeway

The court noted the gravity of the misconduct—serious corruption allegations where the Applicant was caught red-handed—and accepted the Respondents' argument that such matters require careful, in-depth departmental scrutiny alongside the progress of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) case

Regarding the Applicant's reliance on the Rajasthan High Court's stay in Deepak Badjatya, the Tribunal found it irrelevant as that case focused on whether the State ACB or the CBI should investigate a criminal matter, whereas the present case is a disciplinary proceeding under the Tribunal's specific jurisdiction

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant could not simultaneously seek completion of the inquiry while also praying for its quashing

It further held that the interim relief granted in a criminal case by the High Court did not fall within the purview of the Tribunal nor did it apply to the departmental proceedings at hand

Consequently, the Tribunal disallowed M.A. No. 121/2025 and refused to grant the interim stay