Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been instituted by a Constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (henceforth referred to as ‘the Security Force’) questioning the legality and validity of the proceedings dated 24-09-2007, whereby the petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary enquiry by framing the following two Articles of Charge: Article-I 2. That No.902293157 Constable M. Koteswara Rao of CISF Unit, SDSC SHAR, Sriharikota was detailed for “C” shift duty from 2100 hrs on 14.08.2007 to 0500 hrs on 15.08.2007 at Cable patrolling, but he did not report for duty and remained absent from duty, which amounts to dereliction of duty on his part. Hence, the charge. Article-II 3. That No.844509866 Head Constable (GD) N.K. Singha of CISF Unit, SDSC SHAR, Sriharikota is residing in Govt. family quarter No.138, PHC – I, SDSC SHAR, Sriharikota along with his wife named Smt. Nupur Singha. On 13.08.2007 at about 2140 hrs, No.902293157 Constable M. Koteswara Rao came inside the boundary of quarter No.138, PHC – I of No.844509866 Head Constable (GD) N.K. Singha in absence of HC (GD) N.K. Singha, gagged the mouth of Smt. Nupur Singha wife of HC (GD) N.K. Singha and took her to some distance in the jungle, assaulted her and sexually abused her by using criminal force, which amounts to gross misconduct and indiscipline on the part of No.902293157 Constable M. Koteswara Rao. Hence, the charge.” 4. He also challenges the proceedings dated 01-01-2008, wherein the 3rd respondent Assistant Commandant of the Security Force has been appointed as an Inquiry Officer to conduct an inquiry into the above Articles of Charge. 5. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Constable to the Force on 25-05-1990 and that while he was working at Satish Dawan Space Center, Sriharikota, wife of one of his senior colleagues has lodged a complaint with the local police on 14-08-2007, alleging that he has outraged her modesty and consequently, Crime No.28 of 2007 has been registered by the local police at Suloorpet and he is now being prosecuted in respect thereof. The defense set up by the petitioner is that he has performed the second shift duties on 13-08-2007 and additional duty between 8-30 and 9-30 am on 14-08-2007 and because of a strained relationship between his senior colleague and himself arising out of certain financial transactions, he has been falsely implicated in a very grave and serious offence. In the mean time, the alleged incident had been taken serious note of by the senior level officers of the Security Force. The petitioner has been examined by them and persons considered appropriate and relevant have also been examined by the senior officials of the Security Force. As a sequel, the impugned charge memorandum dated 24-09-2007 has been issued, subjecting the writ petitioner for disciplinary action in terms of Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, validity of which has been challenged in this writ petition. 6. While Charge No.1 only reflects the imputation of misconduct of not performing duties in C-shift commencing from 21-00 hours on 14-08-2007 up to 05-00 hours on 15-08-2007 at Cable Patrolling, where he was detailed for such duty, however, the second charge is a far more grave and serious one. It is alleged that at about 21-40 hours on 13-08-2007, he entered the premises of the quarters of his senior colleague and gagged the mouth of his wife and dragged her to some distance and thereafter, outraged her modesty by using criminal force. In Annexure-III to the charge memo, the list of documents by which Articles of Charge framed against the petitioner are proposed to be sustained, have been listed. The documents listed at serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3, obviously, pertain to Charge No.1, relating to dereliction of his duties and the rest of the documents listed at serial Nos.4 to 9 relate to Charge No.2. Importantly, the statement of the wife of the senior colleague of the writ petitioner, the victim of the alleged outrageous conduct of the petitioner, has been listed at serial No.4. It is also pertinent to note that in Annexure-IV comprising the list of witnesses, in support of the Articles of charges, are proposed to be examined contained the names of the alleged victim at serial No.3. It is, therefore, more than clear that the respondents are now proceeding to conduct an inquiry against a very grave act alleged against the petitioner. 7. It is, therefore, more than clear that the respondents are now proceeding to conduct an inquiry against a very grave act alleged against the petitioner. 7. When the writ petitioner submitted a representation on 19-12-2007, soliciting a copy of the translated version of the statement of the alleged victim, a reference to which has been made supra, the Senior Commandant of the Security Force, through his office memo dated 24-12-2007, furnished the same. At internal page No.2 thereof, five questions appear to have been put to the alleged victim by the officer, who recorded her statement. She furnished answers to those questions. The officer has reduced the questions and the answers to writing, which are to the following effect: “Q.No.1: Since when you have relation with Constable M.K.Rao? Answer: I have normal talk relation with Constable M.K.Rao since one year. Q.No.2: Since when you have sexual relation with Constable M.K.Rao? Answer: Since last six months, we have sexual relation. Q.No.3: Had your husband any knowledge about your sexual relation with Constable M.K.Rao? Answer: Yes. Q.No.4: What is reason of sexual relation with Constable M.K.Rao? Answer: My husband had taken a sum of Rs.5000/- from Constable M.K.Rao, due to which frequent meeting with each other was increased and developed up to sexual relation. Constable M.K.Rao told that if you agree then I will marry you. Q.No.5: If Constable M.K.Rao offers to marry you, then what is your opinion? Answer: I am also ready to marry.” 8. This apart, the local police have already filed a charge sheet against the petitioner based upon the complaint said to have been lodged by the alleged victim. 9. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed in the matter, sworn to by the Senior Commandant of the Security Force. It has brought out all the facts, a gist of which has already been adverted to supra. It was also brought out that the writ petitioner was arrested by the police at Sriharikota on 15-08-2007 and he was remanded to judicial custody at Sub Jail, Gudur, immediately. It was also further brought out that the writ petitioner has been consequently placed under suspension by an order passed on 17-08-2007, in view of his detention for more than 48 hours in custody. It was also further brought out that the writ petitioner has been consequently placed under suspension by an order passed on 17-08-2007, in view of his detention for more than 48 hours in custody. It was further brought out that preliminary inquiry into the very same incident was got conducted by Sri S.Bhagat, Deputy Commandant of the Security Force, who submitted his report on 17-08-2007. The Senior Commandant, at great length, dealt with as to how the morale of the Security Force would be jeopardized if members of the Security Force indulge in grave acts of misconduct, like in the instant case. 10. The whole question that requires consideration in the instant case is as to whether it is appropriate to allow the disciplinary inquiry when the petitioner is facing a criminal trial comprising of the very same set of facts and examination of the alleged victim whose testimony plays a pivotal role. 11. It is not very difficult, for one, to visualize that the charge, which the writ petitioner is facing in the criminal case, is a very grave one. The consequences of a fall out therefrom are equally grave as any aggressor of such offences was very likely to be incarcerated and no leniency would be shown by any Court, if the offence is held established. It is, therefore, of immense significance for the person facing such a grave charge to preserve his vital defence till such time at least the prosecution completes its side of evidence. Any disclosure of defence in such a sensitive matter will have perilous consequences. When a person is seriously challenged of two situations; one involving his precious right of liberty and the other, right to employment, the situation is one of crossroad confusion. Which one will have priority or primacy over the other is made to depend upon the peculiar fact situation prevailing in such cases. There cannot be any hard and fast rule laid out that till such time the prosecution in the criminal case is over, the departmental enquiry will have to await. The principles on the subject have all been crystallized by the Supreme Court in several cases such as; THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. B.K. MEENA AND OTHERS (1996) 6 SCC 417 , CAPT. The principles on the subject have all been crystallized by the Supreme Court in several cases such as; THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. B.K. MEENA AND OTHERS (1996) 6 SCC 417 , CAPT. M. PAUL ANTHONY v, BHARAT GOLD MINES LIMITED (1999) 3 SCC 679 , KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN v. T. SRINIVAS AIR 2004 SC 4127 , NOIDA ENTERPRENUERS ASSOCIATION v. NOIDA AND OTHERS AIR 2007 SC 1161 , HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS v. SARVESH BERRY AIR 2005 SC 1406 , DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. MOHD. YOUSUF MIYA AIR 1997 SC 2232 . 12. But, the fact situation prevailing in the case on hand is something very extraordinary. As was noticed already, when the alleged victim was put a question by the Preliminary Inquiry Officer, unhesitatingly, she has admitted of an unusual relationship, which she had with the petitioner and the said fact is well within the knowledge of her husband too. The victim goes to the extent of showing her keenness and readiness to marry the writ petitioner. This part of her statement stands out in contrast to her complaint of unjust, unlawful and unwarranted aggression on her by the writ petitioner. 13. In this view of the matter, will it be appropriate to allow the disciplinary proceedings to be concluded ahead of the criminal charge laid against the petitioner? To my mind, in the extra ordinary fact situation prevailing, it is totally unsafe to allow the disciplinary proceedings to be concluded without the criminal charge laid against the petitioner is concluded one way or the other. Further, if a competent criminal court considers the same material and then comes to a conclusion one way or the other of the guilt of the petitioner, the same will help the disciplinary authority also to view the fact situation in its proper perspective. 14. While the anxiety and concern of the respondents to preserve the morale of the Security Force is undoubtedly understandable, but at the same time, the right balance between the consequences of concluding the disciplinary proceedings ahead of a serious criminal prosecution into the very same incident by a Sessions Court should not be sacrificed or ignored. The views of the Sessions Court will go a long way in reconstructing the entire event and also appreciating it in its correct perspective. 15. The views of the Sessions Court will go a long way in reconstructing the entire event and also appreciating it in its correct perspective. 15. Hence, I consider that the writ petitioner has made out a strong case only to the extent of directing the respondents not to proceed to conduct the disciplinary proceedings into the charge memo dated 24.09.2007 till such time the competent criminal court concludes the trial into the criminal case launched against the petitioner into the very same incident. No case is made out, however, for quashing the charge memo itself. 16. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.