JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order passed by the fourth respondent, vide Na.Ka.No.2/2007 dated 14.09.2007, ordering the removal of the petitioner from service. 2. The petitioner, after passing his 10th standard, was appointed as Panchayat Assistant on 12.08.1997 at Sathanur Panchayat, in pursuance of the resolution No.10/1997. 3. While the petitioner was in service and was performing duties pertaining to "National Rural Employment Guarantee Act", the petitioner was placed under suspension on 24.08.2007, on serious misconduct of misappropriation, of Rs.8,477/- (Rupees eight thousand four hundred and seventy seven only) from the scheme fund account, and was asked to appear for enquiry before the Director of Rural Development, Villupuram, on 11.07.2007. It is not disputed that thereafter no departmental enquiry was held. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted a detailed explanation to the allegations levelled against him, wherein he denied the allegations. A request was also made to the enquiry officer to hold departmental enquiry in accordance with rules to prove the charges. 5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of suspension, filed W.P.No.29475 of 2007. This Court did not find any merit in the writ petition. 6. However, instead of dismissing the writ petition, it was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation filed by the petitioner challenging the order of suspension. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact, that a criminal case was also pending against the petitioner. The submission of the petitioner is that before respondent No.1 could pass an order, in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court to consider the continuation of petitioner on suspension, the impugned order removing the petitioner from service was passed. 8. Though the remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner, but the petitioner without availing the statutory remedy of appeal, approached this Court to challenge the order of his removal from service. 9. This Court admitted the writ petition without relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy of appeal. Therefore, it will not be appropriate at this stage to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal, after more than four years. 10. 9. This Court admitted the writ petition without relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy of appeal. Therefore, it will not be appropriate at this stage to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal, after more than four years. 10. The order of removal from service has been challenged, primarily on the ground that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no enquiry was held to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner, before ordering removal from service. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained having been passed in violation of statutory rules. The bare reading of the impugned order shows, that no departmental enquiry was held and the order of removal was passed only for the reason that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. 11. On consideration, this Court finds that the impugned order cannot be sustained, for the simple reason that it was passed merely on registration of the criminal case. Though it is open to the employer to suspend an employee pending criminal proceedings, but the employee can only be removed after conviction, that too, by taking note of the conduct leading to his conviction. 12. It may be noticed here that the employer, during the pendency of criminal case, could hold departmental enquiry independent of criminal case and remove an employee on proved charges, not otherwise. 13. The impugned order of removal from service without holding departmental enquiry and proving the charges by following the rules governing the service conditions cannot be sustained in law, as it is not disputed that the petitioner has not been convicted so far. 14. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It shall be open to the respondents to place the petitioner under suspension or take a decision whether the petitioner is to be continued to be placed under suspension during the pendency of criminal case, and it is only in the event of conviction, that an order of removal from service can be passed, by taking into consideration the conduct leading to conviction in a criminal case. 15. It is also made clear, that it shall be open to the respondents, if so advised, to proceed with departmental enquiry in accordance with law and take action against the petitioner. No costs.