IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.03.2010 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.BASHA Writ Petition No.26392 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2009 Thenmozhi Ravichandran .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj (PRI V) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Commissioner of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Chennai – 15. 3. The Director of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Chennai – 5. 4. The Inspector of Panchayat Raj, and District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 5. The Assistant Director of Panchayat- cum-Taluk Development Officer, Villupuram. 6. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Gingee Town & Taluk, Villupuram District. 7. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union,(Village Panchayat), Gingee Town & Taluk, Villupuram District. 8. Tmt.S.Manjula, Vice President (now president), W/o.Subramani, Thatchampattu Panchayat, Panchayat Union, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. .. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent made in G.O.(D) No.553 dated 23.09.2009 in confirming the fourth respondent's Notification made in VI(2)/49/2009 T.N.G.G.No.4 Part IV Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte dated 04.02.2009 made by his proceedings in Na.Ka.A6/3472/2007 dated 09.01.2009 to quash the same as illegal, incompetent, ultravires and unjust with a direction to restore the petitioner as President of the Thatchampattu Village Panchayat, Thatchampattu Village & Post, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thamizharasan For Respondent : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal, Nos.1 to 7 Government Advocate For Respondent-8 : Mr.E.Manoharan, for M/s.D.Geetha ORDER By mutual consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.553 dated 23.09.2009 in confirming the fourth respondent's Notification made in VI(2)/49/2009 T.N.G.G.No.4 Part IV Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte dated 04.02.2009 made by his proceedings in Na.Ka.A6/3472/2007 dated 09.01.2009 a direction to restore the petitioner as President of the Thatchampattu Village Panchayat, Thatchampattu Village & Post, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. 3. The petitioner was the Panchayat President of Thatchampattu Panchayat, Gingee Panchayat Union, Villupuram District and she was removed from the post of Panchayat President on the basis of the complaint received from the Vice President of Thatchampattu Panchayat alleging that the petitioner said to have misappropriated funds in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme to the tune of Rs.1,09,920/- by means of forgery of Nominal Muster Rolls. A show-cause notice dated 21.04.2008 was issued by the fourth respondent to the petitioner and the petitioner has given her explanation dated 19.05.2008 denying the allegations. As the explanations offered by the petitioner were not satisfied, the Inspector of Panchayat, viz., the District Collector, the fourth respondent herein, had proposed to remove the President, viz., the petitioner, and issued order nominating the Tahsildar, Gingee, the sixth respondent herein, to conduct special meeting as per provisions under Section 205(2) to (10) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act to ascertain the views of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ panchayat for the removal of the President and to proceed further. Five members out of six members supported the petitioner and stated that the petitioner should not be removed from the post of Panchayat President. But the fourth respondent, Inspector of Panchayat, had not accepted the views of the panchayat and by differing view of the panchayat, issued orders for the removal of the President, viz., the petitioner, by his proceedings in ROC No.A6/3472/2007 dated 09.01.2009. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.4252/2009 and this Court dismissed the said writ petition by order dated 25.03.2009 directing the petitioner to exhaust the provisions under Section 205 (12) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act by preferring a revision with the Government. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Government and the Government dismissed the revision confirming the orders passed by the fourth respondent, viz., Inspector of Panchayat/the District Collector. Being aggrieved against the orders, the petitioner has now come forward with this present petition seeking for the above said relief. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that as the fourth respondent, Inspector of Panchayat, differed from the view expressed by the majority of the members of the Panchayat, he ought to have issued a fresh notice to the petitioner by affording opportunity to the petitioner to put forward her case. It is contended that the Inspector of Panchayat has not given any fresh notice and afforded further opportunity to the petitioner to defend her case. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention would also place reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in The District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat V. Devi Parasuraman reported in 2009 (4) CTC 609. 5. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal, learned Government Advocate would contend that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. It is contended that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to put forward her case. It is pointed out that a show-cause notice was given and for that the petitioner has also submitted her explanation and the fourth respondent being not satisfied with the said explanation proceeded to direct the Tahsildar to convene the Panchayat meeting in compliance of the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act under Section 205(2) to (10). It is further contended that in the said meeting 5 members out of six members supported the petitioner and stated that the petitioner should not be removed from the post of President. But the fourth respondent, having considered that there are enough materials available on record to prove the charge of misappropriation, differed from the view of the Panchayat and passed the impugned order of removal. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the eighth respondent on the above submissions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the impugned order and other materials available on record. 8. The crux of the question involved in this matter is to the effect that whether the Inspector of Panchayat, viz., the District Collector/fourth respondent herein, in the event of differing from the majority view of the Panchayat to the effect that the petitioner is not liable to be removed, is bound to give fresh notice to the petitioner. 9. In order to consider the question involved in this matter, it is relevant to refer the Full Bench of this Court in The District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat V. Devi Parasuraman reported in 2009 (4) CTC 609. The Full Bench held in the said decision as hereunder : "17. In the light of the discussions made above, we summarise our views as follows : (i) An act of the Inspector under Section 205 is quasi-judicial in nature; (ii) If the Inspector is satisfied with the explanation submitted by the President under Section 205, he is required to record his satisfaction for dropping the proceeding ; and (iii) If the Inspector differs with the views expressed by the Village Panchayat and decides to remove the President or to drop the proceeding against the President, he is not only required to record the reasons for differing with the views of the Village Panchayat, but before taking any decision to remove the President, the Inspector is also required to provide further notice to the President intimating the reasons for difference and can issue notification only on consideration of cause, if any, shown by the President." 10. The above said decision rendered by the Full Bench makes it crystal clear that in the event of the Inspector of Panchayat differing from the view expressed by the village Panchayat and decides to remove the President, he is not only required to record the reasons for differing from the views of the Village Panchayat, but before taking any decision to remove the President is also required to provide further notice to the President. 11. In a similar matter a learned Single Judge of this Court following the decision of the Full Bench set aside a similar order in an unreported order in W.P.No.13139 of 2009 dated 14.10.2009. 12. As far as the instant case is concerned, it is not disputed in the counter that the Inspector of Panchayat/District Collector, the fourth respondent, having differed from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ majority view of the Panchayat members has not issued fresh notice viz., the second show-cause notice, to the petitioner affording opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her case effectively. 13. In view of the above said reason, this Court is constrained to set aside the impugned orders and accordingly, the Government Order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.553 dated 23.09.2009 confirming the fourth respondent's Notification made in VI(2)/49/2009 T.N.G.G.No.4 Part IV Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte dated 04.02.2009 made by his proceedings in Na.Ka.A6/3472/2007 dated 09.01.2009 are hereby set aside and this writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 14. It is made clear the fourth respondent is at liberty to take further fresh proceeding after issuing the second show-cause notice in accordance with law. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar gg To 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj (PRI V) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Commissioner of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Chennai – 15. 3. The Director of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Chennai – 5. 4. The Inspector of Panchayat Raj and District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 5. The Assistant Director of Panchayat- cum-Taluk Development Officer, Villupuram. 6. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Gingee Town & Taluk, Villupuram District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union, (Village Panchayat), Gingee Town & Taluk, Villupuram District. + 1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.14161 + 2 cc to Mr.A.Thamizharasan,Advocate,SR.13731 W.P. No.26392 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2009 RB(CO) EM/9.3.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/