Judgment :- (Petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.2662/2003 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to call for the records in purusuant to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Proc.Na.Ka.A2/143/2003 dated 01.06.2003 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages.) The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order of termination passed against the petitioner on 01.06.2003 by the 3rd respondent. 2. The reason stated for passing the order of termination is that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case in Crime No.82/2003 on the file of the Usilampatti Town Police Station. In the said criminal case, the petitioner is accused No.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the criminal case is yet to be over and no final order is passed. The 3rd respondent based on the petitioner’s involvement in the criminal case, issued a show cause notice and after getting his explanation, straight away passed the order of termination without conducting any enquiry and not even framing charge memo for initiating disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case may be a ground for suspension but not for issuance of an order of termination. He also submitted that under such circumstances, a charge memo has to be issued, explanation should be called for and if it is not satisfactory, enquiry shall be conducted and based on the enquiry report only, final order can be passed, especially when the penalty of dismissal from service, the major penalty is imposed. 3. The learned counsel cited the Judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 660 (V.L. Lakshmanakumar Vs. The District Manager, TASMAC Limited, Madurai District, Madurai) to support his contention. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that due to the involvement in a criminal case, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and after the receipt of the explanation only the petitioner was dismissed from service and there is no illegality in the order. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. In the decision reported in 2006 (1) CTC 660 (V.L. Lakshmanakumar Vs. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. In the decision reported in 2006 (1) CTC 660 (V.L. Lakshmanakumar Vs. The District Manager, TASMAC Limited, Madurai District, Madurai), this Court set aside the order of termination of temporary employees of TASMAC, following the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1999 (3) SCC 60 (Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences) and 2005 (7) SCC 518 (State of Haryana Vs. Satyender Singh Rathore) and set aside the order of termination with a liberty to proceed with departmental action in accordance with law. The said Judgment was followed by me in W.P.No.13209/2005 by order dated 14.03.2006. 5. In view of the said submissions, and admittedly, no enquiry being conducted, the impugned order of termination passed against the petitioner is unsustainable and accordingly it is set aside. However, the petitioner having been involved in a criminal case and being accused No.3 in Crime No.82/2003 on the file of Usilampatti Town Police Station, the petitioner shall be treated to be under suspension from 1.6.2003 till the criminal case is over or the departmental proceedings is initiated and finalised. The petitioner shall be paid the subsistence allowance as admissible from 01.06.2003. 6. The writ petition is allowed with above direction. No costs.