JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 6/7/2015 made in W.P.No.19677 of 2015.

1. Vide, proceedings No.1492/A1/2014, dated 3/6/2015, Collector, Krishnagiri District, removed the respondent, Anganvadi worker from service, on the grounds that a criminal case was registered against her, alleging that she had acted against the Government rules and policy.

2. Being aggrieved by the removal, respondent has filed W.P.No.19677 of 2015, for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the order passed by the Collector, Krishnagiri District, first respondent, in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1492/A1/2014, dated 3/6/2015 and direct the respondents therein, to reinstate her in service, with all consequential benefits.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by observing that merely because a criminal case was registered, respondent cannot be removed pending outcome of the criminal case, writ Court, vide, order, dated 6/7/2015, set aside the impugned order therein and directed reinstatement. Short order made in W.P.No.19677 of 2015, dated 6/7/2015, is re-produced.

“The petitioner is an Anganwadi worker. She is dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 3/6/2015 on the sole ground that a criminal case is pending against her. No Government employee could be dismissed from service on the ground that a criminal case is pending.

Either the Department can place the petitioner under suspension pending outcome of the criminal case or without awaiting for the outcome of the criminal case, the Department would proceed departmentally, and the employee could be imposed with punishment based on such departmental proceeding. But the Department cannot straight away dismiss an employee on the ground that a criminal case is pending. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. However, this will not preclude the respondents from the placing the petitioner under suspension till the completion of criminal case or from taking Departmental action against the petitioner, if so advised. If the petitioner is placed under suspension pending outcome of the criminal case or pending the departmental enquriy, the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance, as per the Rules. No costs. Connected M.P is closed.”

4. The said order is impugned in this appeal on the grounds inter alia that the respondent was involved in a criminal case in F.I.R.No.644 of 2014, on the file of Krishnagiri Town Police Station, under Sections 420, 465, 468 and Sections 5 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Raffle Tickets Act, she was arrested by the Police and kept under custody, for three days and thereafter, suspended from service, on 19/9/2014. As per Government letter No.151/NMP1/2003-1, dated 11/8/2003, respondent/petitioner was removed from service, on 3/6/2015.

5. On more than one occasion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, held that the reasons are the heart beat of any decision. Reference can be made to few decisions.

6. In M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., v. STO, Rourkela-I Circle & Ors. reported in 2008 (5) Supreme 281, the Hon'ble Supreme Court testing the correctness of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax against the assessment, at Paragraph 10, held as follows:

"10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless."

7. In Kranti Associates Private Limited and another vs. Masood Ahamed Khan and Others) reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered a catena of decisions, which are extracted hereunder:

12. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. Initially this Court recognised a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi-judicial orders but with the passage of time the d