ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is before this court impugning the Memorandum of Charges issued by the second respondent-enquiry authority, on the ground that the same is vague and ambiguous and contrary to the law of the land. Annexure-A is the Charge Memo. 3. In the first charge, it is stated that while the petitioner was discharging duties as an Assistant Revenue Officer, Marathalli Sub-Division he was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau resulting in his arrest, and it is alleged that on account of which, he has brought disrepute to the department and guilty of committing an act which is unbecoming of a Government Servant. 4. The second charge is also, virtually a repetition of the earlier charge with the distinction being the reference to the communication of the Anti Corruption Bureau requesting action be initiated under Rule 10(1)(A) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 and is a charge for an act amounting to misconduct under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the criminal proceedings have been initiated and charge sheet is yet to be filed in the same, but despite the same, the first respondent has proceeded to appoint the Enquiry Officer the second respondent herein, to conduct an enquiry and he would submit that an application was made praying the enquiry authority to suspend the proceedings in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V. and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 636 . 6. He would submit that parallel proceedings are impermissible in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra. On perusal of the said decision, it is apparent that the Hon’ble Apex Court has recommended suspension of departmental proceedings in the event departmental proceedings involved adjudication of complex questions of facts and law and has also held that, mere pendency of criminal proceedings is not a bar for continuation of disciplinary enquiry. The Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to analyze its own ruling in paragraph 8 to 12 and has proceeded to observe as follows in paragraph 13, 14 and 16 which is extracted herein-below:- “13. The Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to analyze its own ruling in paragraph 8 to 12 and has proceeded to observe as follows in paragraph 13, 14 and 16 which is extracted herein-below:- “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 levelled 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. 14. In Paul Anthony this Court went a step further to hold that departmental 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. 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 defence 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 ongoing 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.” 7. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees.” 7. From a reading of the above, it is apparent that the Hon’ble Apex Court is of the view, that a detent in the continuation of the departmental enquiry is desirable, in the event of the disciplinary enquiry involving adjudication of complex issues of facts and law and if adjudication of such complex issue of facts and law would require the employee to disclose his defense and thereby compromise his stand in the trial before the criminal court. 8. In the instant case, there is no disputing the fact that the petitioner was arrested by the Anti Corruption Bureau on 25.05.2019 and that the Anti Corruption Bureau has acted on a complaint and FIR registered on 24.05.2019 and in the trap laid on 25.05.2019 the petitioner was caught red-handed while receiving illegal gratification. The act of receipt of illegal gratification is not a charge under the impugned Memorandum of Charge. On the contrary, the petitioner is charged of a conduct unbecoming of a Government servant. The trap and arrest is definitely not a conduct that can be approved and would fall within the four corners of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The adjudication of the charge alleged against the petitioner will not in any manner require adjudication of the facts as to whether he has actually received illegal gratification or not. The fact that he has been subjected to a trap and arrested by the Anti Corruption Bureau in the opinion of this court, would prima-facie suffice to drive home the charge and are independent of the charge against the petitioner laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau. Hence, the adjudication of the charge would not involve revealing the defense of the petitioner, and hence, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as one that would result in compromising the defence of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings. 9. Hence, the adjudication of the charge would not involve revealing the defense of the petitioner, and hence, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as one that would result in compromising the defence of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings. 9. The second limb of argument by the petitioner is that the charge is vague and that neither the amount said to have been received by him nor the reason why it has been demanded are forthcoming in the Memorandum of Charge and hence the impugned Memorandum of Charge is bad on the ground of being ambiguous and vague as noted supra. The charge alleged against him is of a conduct unbecoming of a Government servant. What is sought to be enquired into is not the actual act of having received the alleged bribe amount or whether he has received the bribe amount at all or whether there is a demand for illegal gratification etc. What is alleged against the petitioner is that he is guilty of a conduct, which is unbecoming of a Government servant. There being no dispute with regard to the arrest of an officer during the discharge of his duties for an alleged act which, if demonstrated would result in severe penal consequences, is certainly a conduct unbecoming of a Government servant. Hence, the reliance on the observations made by this court in the case of Sri. Venkatesh Gururao Kuratti vs. Syndicate Bank, Rep. by the Chairman and Managing Director, Manipal and Others, ILR 2004 Kar. 2240 is of no avail to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of substance is dismissed. 11. It is made clear that the Enquiry Officer shall dispose off the enquiry un-influenced by any of the observations made herein above. The observations made herein above are observed for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition only.