JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC appearing for all the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.07.2020, by which he was put under suspension, which was extended from time to time; further praying for reinstating him in service with all benefits including arrear pay and continuity in service from 29.01.2020; further praying for setting aside the memorandum of charges dated 31.08.2020 in so far as it relates to the petitioner; and the petitioner has also made a prayer for restraining the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case projected in this writ petition is that he is working as a Constable (General Duty) in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF for short) since the year 2004. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted at 178 Bn., CRPF, presently located at Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioner had applied for earned leave to visit his home, which was duly sanctioned by the competent authority with effect on and from 18.12.2019 to 31.01.2020. Bereft of details, it would be sufficient to mention herein that during this leave period, an FIR was lodged in Dharamtul P.S., registered as Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 10/2020 under Sections 395 and 397 IPC., wherein it was alleged that a sum of Rs.12.00 lakh was looted from the first informant at about 22.01.2020 at about 7.30 pm. by four persons wearing CRPF uniform. The petitioner was arrested on 24.01.2020 and he was released on bail by order dated 15.02.2020. by four persons wearing CRPF uniform. The petitioner was arrested on 24.01.2020 and he was released on bail by order dated 15.02.2020. By extensively relying on the bail order dated 15.02.2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while granting bail, the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon had examined the case dairy and that the said learned Court had recorded a finding to the effect that the informant was arrested in connection with Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 11/2020 and it was found that the said first informant had lodged a false case alleging snatching of Rs.12.00 lakh, and that the investigation by the police had revealed that at the relevant time, the arrested informant had Rs.5,50,000/-with him out of which he had kept a sum of Rs.3,33,000/- with his father in law, which was recovered and the balance money was kept under the mat on his own car and accordingly charge-sheet bearing no. 10/2020 was submitted by I.O. in connection with Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 11/2020 under Sections 120-B, 419, 420/384 IPC. Accordingly, it is submitted that an out and out false case criminal case of dacoity came to be lodged and registered against the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that by an order dated 29.01.2020, the petitioner was put under suspension by the respondent no. 3 under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 1965 Rules). It is submitted that the suspension order, it was not indicated that the petitioner had to report back to his battalion and the head-quarter of the petitioner during the period of suspension was also not stipulated. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 had served to the petitioner an order dated 30.04.2020, thereby cancelling the order dated 29.01.2020. Later on, by an order dated 10.07.2020, the respondent no. 3 had placed the petitioner under suspension under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules pending preliminary enquiry. It is submitted that though it was mentioned in the said order dated 10.07.2020 that the petitioner was transferred to Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati, but till filing of the writ petition, the transfer order was not served on the petitioner. 3 had placed the petitioner under suspension under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules pending preliminary enquiry. It is submitted that though it was mentioned in the said order dated 10.07.2020 that the petitioner was transferred to Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati, but till filing of the writ petition, the transfer order was not served on the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner was served with a Memorandum dated 31.08.2020, containing three Article of Charges together with statement of imputation of misconduct, list of documents and list of witnesses by which the Article of Charges was proposed to be proved. It is projected that as the petitioner is a member of CRPF, the respondent no. 3 had illegally invoked the provisions of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules to suspend the petitioner pending the preliminary enquiry, which is unsustainable, as the said provisions are not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 27A of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and therefore, it is submitted that the suspension order dated 29.01.2020 and 10.07.2020. It is also submitted that the order of suspension was withdrawn by order dated 30.04.2020, therefore, the respondents are required to treat the petitioner as regular and “without suspension” from 29.01.2020 till the second order of suspension was passed on 10.07.2020. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 08.10.2020 passed by this Court and it is submitted that as this Court had allowed the respondent authorities to proceed against the petitioner as may be available under the law, the petitioner had cooperated with the departmental enquiry. 6. It is submitted that the Article of Charge no.1 is without any merit and has to fail because by a Leave and Duty Certificate dated 14.12.2019 (Annexure-1), the petitioner had been granted earned leave for 45 days from 18.12.2019 to 31.01.2020, and was to report back to duty on 31.01.2020 in evening roll call at ACS TC (RTC-IV) Srinagar (J&K). Thus, neither the petitioner was stationed at Group Centre Matiparbat, nor he had left the said campus on 22.01.2020 without permission from competent authority. By referring to the Article of Charge no. Thus, neither the petitioner was stationed at Group Centre Matiparbat, nor he had left the said campus on 22.01.2020 without permission from competent authority. By referring to the Article of Charge no. II, it is submitted that the bail order dated 15.02.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon was sufficient to show that the petitioner was implicated in a false case and that the first informant was arrested and was charge-sheeted. It is submitted that not a single document appended in the list accompanying the Memorandum dated 31.08.2020 discloses commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioner. Moreover, by referred to the Article of Charge no. III, it is submitted that the respondents have presumed the involvement of the petitioner in the case of dacoity, registered as Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 10/2020 without there being any evidence to that effect. Accordingly, it is submitted that this was a fit and proper case for quashing the Memorandum dated 31.08.2020 and consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to all reliefs as prayed for. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 STPL 3601 SC; and Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. Rakeshkumari Pal & Anr., (2012) 0 Supreme(Guj) 443. 7. The learned CGC had submitted that in the event the disciplinary enquiry is interfered with, the same would be inconsistent with the order dated 08.10.2020 passed in this writ petition to allow the respondents to proceed against the petitioner. It is submitted that the memorandum of charges cannot quashed without allowing the enquiry to conclude. In this regard, the learned CGC has referred to the case of Bishwa Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 36. 8. It is seen that the petitioner has not annexed the charge-sheet of the criminal case in which he is facing trial. The charge-sheet, amongst others, contains the name of the accused sent for trial, names of accused not sent-up for trial, names of the absconding accused, sections under which charge-sheet is submitted, names and particulars of witnesses who would prove the prosecution case, gist of offence, etc. Thus, in other words, there is no material to show that on which set of allegations, the criminal trial is proceeding. Thus, in other words, there is no material to show that on which set of allegations, the criminal trial is proceeding. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to hold that as on date, there is no material on record to show that the same set of witnesses are being examined in the disciplinary enquiry and also in the criminal proceeding arising out of Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 10/2020 and Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 11/2020. Therefore, The Court is unable to record its satisfaction that the petitioner would suffer prejudice if the criminal trial and disciplinary proceeding are conducted simultaneously. 9. There is no doubt that in a criminal trial, the accused has a right under the Constitution of India to remain silent. Therefore, even if an accused desires to tender his own evidence as witness, the accused is required to submit a petition in writing under the provisions of Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 315 of the Criminal Procedure Code to waive his right which was safeguarded under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, in the present case in hand, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate from the materials available on record that he is facing criminal trial and disciplinary proceeding on the same set of allegations, sought to be proved by same set of witnesses. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner is heavily relying on the bail order dated 15.02.2020 to project the facts of the case of Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 10/2020 and Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 11/2020. We are unable to accept that the order of bail would disclose the entire set of allegations under which the petitioner is facing trial, or that the observations made by the learned Court while granting bail would prevail in trial. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in both the said police cases prior to the date of 15.02.2020, when the prayer for bail made by the petitioner was considered by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. Therefore, as the petitioner was arrested in connection with Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 10/2020, there is nothing on record to dispel the presumption that the petitioner is one of the accused in the said case. 11. Therefore, as the petitioner was arrested in connection with Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 10/2020, there is nothing on record to dispel the presumption that the petitioner is one of the accused in the said case. Without expressing any final opinion, even assuming that the opinion of the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in respect of Article of Charges no. I, that the petitioner was not an inmate of Group Centre, Matiparbat and did not require any permission from the competent officer to remain outside the said Group Centre, yet, there is absence of materials to show that the disciplinary enquiry ought not to be taken to its logical conclusion in respect of the remaining Article of Charges, and that too without examining the nature of evidence which has been led by departmental witnesses including their cross examination. Therefore, assuming that Court takes a possible view that one or more Article of Charges cannot be sustained, it would not lead to quashing of the entire Memorandum initiating disciplinary enquiry. 12. In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), the Supreme Court of India had examined several cases on the point and observed as under:- “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case 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 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 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 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. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot 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. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed the departmental 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 honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” (extracted from 1999 STPL 3601 SC). 13. Thus, it can be seen that no straight jacket formula has been laid down by the Supreme Court to the effect that in no condition it was permissible for a criminal trial and disciplinary enquiry to proceed on the same facts. 14. One of the finding of the Supreme Court of India, relevant to this present case in hand, owing to which the ex parte departmental proceeding was set aside and reinstatement of the appellant therein was ordered in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), is extracted below:- “34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts namely, 'the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom.' The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the 'raid and recovery' at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings, to stand. 35. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case.” (extracted from 1999 STPL 3601 SC). 15. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that in this case, there is no material to show that the criminal trial and the disciplinary enquiry were under same set of facts and that the respondents were seeking to prove the alleged misconduct of the petitioner from the very witnesses who were listed as witnesses in the criminal proceeding. Moreover, even the charge-sheet of the criminal proceeding is not available in the writ petition from which the Court can arrive at a conclusion that a criminal trial and disciplinary proceeding are on same facts. Therefore, the cited case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), does not come to the aid of the petitioner in any way. 16. In the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra), the High Court of Gujarat had decided the case on the basis of Model Standing Order No. 24(1). There is nothing on record that the said Standing Order is applicable to CRPF and that the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 or Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 have any provisions which is pari material to the Standing Order, which would put an embargo upon the respondents to take notice of an alleged misconduct which had occurred outside CRPF Camp. Therefore, on facts, the said cited case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 17. Therefore, on facts, the said cited case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 17. Thus, the only point left to be seen is whether the impugned order of suspension dated 10.07.2020 is liable to be interfered with. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2015 SC 2389 , the Supreme Court of India had directed that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/ Charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee and it was provided that if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that there was undue delay in serving a memorandum containing article of charges. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the order of suspension had not been extended in respect of the petitioner. Therefore, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order of suspension dated 10.07.2020. 18. Hence, in light of the discussions above, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. 19. It is clarified that the observations made by the Court in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this lis and is not to be considered as an opinion of the Court touching upon the merit of the criminal trial and/or the disciplinary enquiry and they are left to be decided on its own respective merit, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. It is also clarified that this order shall not prejudice the petitioner from availing appropriate remedy in case he is aggrieved by the result of the criminal trial and/or the disciplinary enquiry.