does not find any merit in the present writ application. Against the petitioner, initially there was a complaint of asking Rs. 5,000/- bribe from the complainant and, thereafter, he was caught accepting bribe of Rs. 5,000/- red handed in a trap case by the Vigilance authorities. Thus, on these two counts, two charges were framed against him respectively. Without adverting to the Charge No. 1 relating to the demand of bribe, the Court is only referring to Charge No. 2, which is of being caught red handed accepting bribe in a trap case by the Vigilance authorities. On this charge, the Enquiry Authority had not given any opinion only on the ground that there was a criminal case for such charge also. However, law is settled that the Disciplinary Authority has not to wait for conclusion of the criminal case while proceeding to conclude the departmental proceeding. In the present case, the explanation given by the petitioner is that on the fateful day at 4.30 P.M., when he returned to his house, suddenly five persons entered his house behind him and took him into custody, which initially he thought was an attempt to kidnap him. It was further in his explanation that upon entering the house, two persons had caught his wrist and one person had taken out a bundle of notes from his suit pocket and had put it in the pocket of the petitioner from where it was taken out and shown to him that Rs. 5,000/- of bribe money was recovered from him and, thereafter, he was forcefully made to sit in a
