ORDER : HARINATH. N, J. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings Rc.No.540/A1/2011, dated 03.09.2011 terminating the services of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker on 29.12.1988. After having work for about two decades the petitioner was selected as Supervisor Grade – II on contract basis on 19.04.2006. The appointment would lapse after a period of one year and the petitioner would have to work as Anganwadi Worker. However, in the case of the petitioner the period of appointment was extended from time to time. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was implicated in a false case registered by ACB on 11.12.2008. On the strength of the said complaint the 5th respondent/authorities issued proceedings dated 14.12.2008 terminating the petitioner from service. 4. The petitioner filed WP.No.2015 of 2009 challenging the unilateral termination by the respondent. This Court while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 22.04.2009 directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker. As the respondents did not comply with the orders of this Court the petitioner filed a contempt case vide CC.No.378 of 2010. The respondents issued proceedings dated 15.05.2010 reinstating the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker after this Court took a serious view in contempt case filed by the petitioner. 5. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 took an adversarial stand towards the petitioner as the petitioner filed contempt against the officers of the respondent. The 5th respondent issued proceedings dated 03.09.2011 straight away terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that an ACB case was pending against the petitioner. 6. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that a trap was laid for the petitioner and the ACB registered a case after finding some amount in the hand bag of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some currency notes were planted in the register. The register was initially handed over by the petitioner to one Rangaiah for signatures. The said Rangaiah took the register and sat on a stair case for signatures and returned the register to the colleague of the petitioner. At the time of handing over the said register some currency notes fell on the ground and that the petitioner enquired with Annapurna as to how the currency notes fell down from the register when the petitioner did not keep the money in the register. At the time of handing over the said register some currency notes fell on the ground and that the petitioner enquired with Annapurna as to how the currency notes fell down from the register when the petitioner did not keep the money in the register. The said Annapurna picked up the notes and kept in the hand bag of the petitioner and in the meanwhile Anti Corruption Bureau officials conducted a raid and registered a case against the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ACB Court took cognizance filed by the ACB police as CC.No.3 of 2015. After a thorough trial the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore vide judgment dated 12.07.2016 acquitted the petitioner. The copy of the said judgment is placed on record by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 8. As seen from the judgment the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases has categorically held that there is absolutely no iota of evidence on record to prove that the accused gained pecuniary advantage as a public servant by indulging into corrupt and illegal means. 9. The learned Special Judge also held that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused demanded illegal gratification at any point of time. It was also observed that the chemical test conducted on the hands of the petitioner did not yield any positive result. The Court also has noted that there was no official favour which was pending compliance on part of the petitioner in exchange of the alleged demanded bribe amount. 10. Having held the accused as not guilty and at the same time the observation of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases that there was absolutely no evidence to point the finger of suspicion towards the accused therein, the said acquittal ought to be considered a clear acquittal on merits. 11. The respondents in their counter submit the employee or public servant is involved in serious offences such as ACB cases there is no necessity for issuing prior notice for terminating the petitioner. The entire counter revolves around the registration of the case against the petitioner by the ACB and substantiating the proceedings of termination there is nothing on the merits of the case. 12. The point for consideration of this Court is whether the impugned proceedings would withstand the scrutiny of law. The entire counter revolves around the registration of the case against the petitioner by the ACB and substantiating the proceedings of termination there is nothing on the merits of the case. 12. The point for consideration of this Court is whether the impugned proceedings would withstand the scrutiny of law. As seen from the proceedings the proceedings are drafted keeping in view the reappointment of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Worker in pursuance of the orders of this Court. The impugned proceedings also refer to the contempt case filed by the petitioner. It is stated that the services of the petitioner are removed with the approval of the committee as criminal case was pending. 13. This Court has no hesitation in holding that mere pendency of a criminal case would not entitle the respondents to straight away issue termination proceedings. The respondents have ignored the cardinal principle of innocent until proven guilty. Mere pendency of criminal case ought not to result in issuance of termination of services of an employee. The pendency of criminal case to a large extent would not hamper or come in the way of the employee in discharging the official duties. The respondents are duty bound to issue a show cause notice and conduct the necessary enquiry before imposing any punishment on the said employee. 14. On the facts of the present case, admittedly no enquiry was either initiated or proposed or conducted or concluded against the petitioner. It is evident on the face of the impugned proceedings that the respondents were waiting in wings to terminate the petitioner at the slightest of the opportunity. The respondents issued the impugned proceedings terminating the petitioner from services without even conducting any enquiry. The respondents are legally required to conduct enquiry in a fair manner duly following the principles of natural justice before imposing any major punishment on an employee. Any major punishment imposed on an employee without conducting any enquiry has to be set aside as the same is bad in law. 15. This Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim orders directing respondents not to fill up the vacancy, until further orders. 16. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on merits. The impugned proceedings were issued in pursuance of the registration of the said crime against the petitioner. 15. This Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim orders directing respondents not to fill up the vacancy, until further orders. 16. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on merits. The impugned proceedings were issued in pursuance of the registration of the said crime against the petitioner. That apart, the impugned proceedings are issued without initiating or conducting any disciplinary proceedings or enquiry. No show cause notice was issued. With these lacuna on part of the respondents, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned proceedings Rc.No.540/A1/2011, dated 03.09.2011. 17. Having found the termination of the petitioner as illegal. It is further directed that the respondents shall reinstate the petitioner into service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled for 50% of back wages and the petitioner shall be extended all service benefits. The respondents are directed to compute the 50% back wages and pay the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of these orders and the respondents are further directed to extend all services benefits to the petitioner. 18. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.