IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22-11-2010 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN W.P. Nos. 21564 & 21565 of 2009 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 1 of 2009 K. Kuppan President Mandakolathur Village Panchayat Polur Taluk, Chetpet Panchayat Union ... Petitioner in both the Tiruvannamalai District Writ Petitions Versus 1. The District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats Thiruvannamalai District Collectorate Thiruvannamalai 2. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats) Chetpet Panchayat Union Chetpet Thiruvannamalai District 3. J. Chitra 4. A. Anjala (3 and 5 impleaded as per the order dated 20.10.2010 in MP No. 1 of 2010 .. Respondents in WP in WP No. 21564 of 2009 1. The District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats Thiruvannamalai District Collectorate Thiruvannamalai 2. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats) Chetpet Panchayat Union Chetpet Thiruvannamalai District 3. The Manager, Union Bank of India, Mudaiyur Branch, Polur Taluk Thiruvannamalai District, 4. J. Chitra 5. A. Anjala https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (RR4 and 5 impleaded as per the order dated 20.10.2010 in MP No. 1 of 2010 .. Respondents in WP in WP No. 21565 of 2010) 21565 WP No. 21564 of 2010:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Na.Ka.A2/6312/2008/A.D (Village Panchayat) dated 15.10.2009 on the file of the first respondent – quash the same. WP No. 21565 of 2010:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Na.Ka.A2/6312/2008/A.D (Village Panchayat) dated 15.10.2009 on the file of the first respondent – quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. T. Murugamanickam in both the writ petitions For Respondents : Mr. R. Murali Government Advocate for RR1 & 2 in WP 21564 of 2010 Mr. Sriram for RR3 and 4 in WP No. 21564 Mr. R. Murali Government Advocate for RR1 and 2 in WP 21565 of 2010 Mr. Sriram for RR4 and 5 in WP No. 21565 COMMON ORDER By consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner in both the writ petition are one and the same and the issues involved in these writ petitions are also common. Therefore, by consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioner is the elected President of Mandakolathur Village Panchayat. He was served with two simultaneous notices dated 15.10.2009 of even reference by the first respondent/District Collector. The first notice was a show cause notice under Section 205 (1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' granting him 15 days time to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for the charges constituted therein. The second notice was issued under Section 203 of the Act whereby the first respondent has invoked his emergency powers and directed the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Chetpet Panchayat Union, the second respondent herein to assume all financial control, which is vested in the petitioner as President of the Village Panchayat. Both these notices are challenged in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ these writ petitions separately. 4. As per the pleadings in both the cases, on the complaint made by four ward members, a notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation. On receipt of the notice, by a letter dated 18.03.2009, the petitioner expressed his inability to attend the meeting scheduled on 19.03.2009. Further, it was also made known that the second respondent already submitted his report dated 16.03.2009 requesting to take action against the petitioner under Section 205 of the Act. Pursuant to the report, the Assistant Director of Panchayat was also directed to make an inspection and accordingly, a report was submitted on 01.10.2009. Pursuant to the report of the Assistant Director of Panchayat, the first respondent has issued the impugned notice under Section 205 (1) (a) of the Act dated 15.10.2009 which is challenged in WP No. 21564 of 2009. 5. In and by the notice dated 15.10.2009, which is challenged in WP No. 21565 of 2009, the first respondent has taken away the administrative powers of the petitioner to sign the cheque and entrusted it to the Block Development Officer, Chetpet, until further orders. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that any action to be taken under Section 205 of the Act will visit the President of the Village Panchayat with civil consequences and therefore, before passing the impugned order, the first respondent should have issued a notice to show cause. Further, the first respondent has already come to a conclusion on the basis of reports of the Assistant Director as well as the Block Development Officer, hence, the impugned notices are vitiated. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the exercise of power under Section 203 on the one side and simultaneously invoking the power under Section 205 of the Act would only show the pre- determined mind of the first respondent in depriving the administrative right of the petitioner as a President of the Village Panchayat and therefore, the action of the first respondent is unwarranted. In so far as the notice under Section 203 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the simultaneous invocation of the power under Sections 203 and 205 of the Act is bad on the basis of the reliance made by the first respondent on the report of the Assistant Director. In any event, no notice was issued by the first respondent before invoking the powers under Section 203 of the Act and therefore,he prayed for allowing the writ petitions. 7. The first respondent has filed a detailed counter in which, among other things, it was contended that the proceedings under Section 205 of the Act was initiated in view of the legal notice dated 08.11.2008 sent on behalf of the elected members of Mandakolathur Village narrating that the petitioner has not issued any proper notice to the members for convening a meeting. According to the ward members, the petitioner has not convened any meeting for the past 1 ½ years. It was also alleged that the petitioner swindled the panchayat funds for his personal use and benefits. Further, the panchayat funds have been misused and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ abused without any resolution of the Village Panchayat. It was also stated in the complaint that the petitioner has awarded contract for many workers without proper tender. As there was a huge misappropriation of panchayat funds, failure of administration of Village Panchayat under the Presidentship of the petitioner, non-maintaining of panchayat records and for not convening a meeting, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 13.11.2008 called upon the petitioner to produce the records on 26.11.2008 at 3.00 pm. Despite notice, the petitioner did not appear. Therefore, a further notice was sent for enquiry on 05.12.2008 at 2.00 pm and the petitioner was called upon to attend the meeting with entire record. It was also stated in that notice that on failure to appear, action would be taken as per the Act. Even for this notice, the petitioner did not respond. Therefore, the first respondent directed the Additional Director of Panchayat to inspect and submit a report. In the meantime, as per the directions of the Additional Director of Village Panchayat, the second respondent issued a notice dated 03.12.2008 calling upon the petitioner to appear on 05.12.2008 along with records. Inspite of all these notices, the petitioner did not appear on 05.12.2008 as directed. Since the petitioner did not respond to all the notices, by notice dated 26.02.2009 of the second respondent, the petitioner was directed to appear on 06.03.2009 along with the entire records. Even for this notice, he did not even reply and therefore, left with no other option, the first respondent has initiated the proceedings under Section 205 (1) (a) of the Act and also invoked the provisions of Section 203 of the Act. Further, what is challenged by the petitioner is only a show cause notice. The petitioner, instead of submitting his reply to the impugned notices has chosen to approach this Court. The writ petitions are not maintainable since the petitioner has chosen to challenge only the show cause notice. As there are many allegations against the petitioner for misappropriation of panchayat funds, the proceedings were rightly initiated by the first respondent. For the past 1 ½ to two years, the petitioner has not chosen to convene a meeting hence, the impugned notices are valid and they are in accordance with law. It is further stated that due to the order of status-quo granted by this Court on 24.10.2009, the petitioner is continuing as President and misusing the funds of the Panchayat. Therefore, the first respondent prayed for vacation of the interim order of status quo and also for dismissal of the writ petitions. 8. The third and fourth respondents, who were subsequently impleaded in the writ petitions, have filed separate counter affidavit stating that they have given the complaint against the petitioner along with others. In the counter affidavit, they have specifically complained as follows:- (i) That the petitioner herein (President of the Panchayat) never gave proper notice to the members for convening the meeting (ii) The petitioner has not convened the meeting for the past 1 ½ years (iii) The administration of the Panchayat was not as per the rules and regulations and also as per the procedures (iv) The petitioner is swindling the Village Panchayat funds for his personal interest and benefits and spending the funds without any resolution of the Village Panchayat https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) The contract works of the village are being done without calling for proper tenders. 9. According to the respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner, after obtaining an order of status-quo from this Court, had withdrawn Rs.8 lakhs without producing any account. They also complain that the petitioner is continuing his illegal activities and even during the time of inspection conducted by the Block Development Officer, the petitioner has not submitted the accounts. The petitioner has also not complied with the demand and quarries sought for by the Block Development Officer. As the petitioner has violated all the norms, he should not be allowed to continue during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 205 of the Act. 10. I have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials on record. The petitioner is the elected President of Mandakolathur Village Panchayat. The petitioner has challenged the notices dated 15.10.2009 issued by the first respondent invoking the provisions of Sections 203 and 205 of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner in both the writ petitions is that, no notice was issued to him before issuing the impugned show cause notices and therefore his valuable civil rights have been taken away. When there is no notice prior to taking away his right, it is against the principles of natural justice and in total violation of law. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are not in accordance with law. In fact, the first respondent should not have even concluded on his own to withdraw the powers vested in him as President of the Village Panchayat. The notice under Section 203 of the Act pending the action taken by the first respondent under Section 205 (1) (a) of the Act would indicate that the first respondent had already come to a conclusion and therefore the notice under Section 205 of the Act is invalid. The civil rights of the petitioner have been infringed by the first respondent without any proper notice. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in (The District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat, Villupuram District and another vs. Devi Parasuraman and another) 2009 4 Law Weekly 778 for the proposition that the Act of the Inspector of Panchayat under Section 205 of the Act is quasi judicial in nature and therefore, the first respondent cannot issue the notice under Section 203 of the Act during the pendency of the enquiry under Section 205 of the Act. In so far as the proceedings under Section 203 of the Act is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in (S. Udayakumar vs. The District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin) 2009 WLR 558 for the proposition that prior to invoking Section 203, a notice ought to have been issued by the first respondent and non-issuance of a notice before invocation of the power under Section 203 vitiates the entire proceedings. 11. It is seen from both the notices under Section 203 as well as 205 of the Act issued by the first respondent that various irregularities committed by the petitioner were detailed therein. In fact, the allegations made by the four ward members were to the effect that no meeting at all has been convened by the petitioner for the past 1 ½ years, funds of the panchayat has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ misappropriated, amounts have been utilised without the sanction of the panchayat. On receipt of the complaint, notices have been issued by the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to appear and produce the records continuously for a period of one year, but the petitioner has neither appeared in person nor produced the records. Only thereafter, the first respondent directed the Block Development Officer to inspect and submit his report, which was also submitted. Thereafter, on the basis of the report submitted by the Block Development Officer, action was initiated by the first respondent. In fact, in the impugned notice, it was clearly stated that (i) the records pertaining to the meeting convened from April 2009 has not been produced before the Block Development Officer during the course of his inspection and the records for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 was not produced and it was not made available. It was also noted that the meeting of the panchayat itself was not properly convened and the attendance for having convened the meeting was also not produced. It was also pointed out that the agenda of the meeting has not been served on the members, records pertaining to the water tax or licence fee registers have not been produced. 12. In so far as misappropriation of funds are concerned, it was pointed out in the impugned notices that various irregularities have been committed by the petitioner. The irregularities were to the effect that the vouchers alone are maintained without even a bill or resolution of the panchayat for expending the same. The alleged maintenance of records for the water tank has been totally without sanction or approval of the concerned Executive Engineer to the tune of Rs.2,70,753/-. Therefore, a detailed report was given by the Block Development Officer as well as the Assistant Director. But the first respondent, who is vested with powers to take necessary action in respect of the misfeasance and maladministration committed by the petitioner, has taken sufficient precautions. As stated in the counter, the first respondent, after receipt of complaint made by the four ward members on 08.11.2008, including the respondents 3 and 4 herein, which was received by the first respondent on 10.11.2008 and 13.11.2008, sent a notice to the petitioner to produce all the records on 26.11.2008 at 3.00 pm. Though the notice was served, the petitioner did not appear before the first respondent. Therefore, again, the first respondent issued another notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before him on 05.12.2008 at 2.00 pm. In this notice, it was stated that if the petitioner failed to appear, as directed, proceedings under the Act will be initiated against him. Inspite of the notices, the petitioner did not respond. Therefore, based on the proceedings dated 18.11.2008 of the Assistant Director of Rural Development, the second respondent issued a notice dated 03.12.2008 directing the petitioner to appear before him on 05.12.2008 with entire records. Inspite of the fact that notices were issued, one by the second respondent and the other by the first respondent, the petitioner did not appear. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner evaded and avoided to produce the documents and also to appear before the first respondent in regard to the enquiry as regards the complaint made by the ward members against him, including the third and fourth respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. After all these steps taken by the first respondent failed to elicit any response from the petitioner, another notice dated 26.02.2009 was issued calling upon the petitioner to appear for a meeting along with the records on 06.03.2009 and even for this also, the petitioner did not respond. However, the petitioner has chosen to produce the letter dated 18.03.2009 addressed to the Block Development Officer in the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition. In that letter, the petitioner would state that he is sending reply for the notices dated 10.10.2008, 28.11.2008, 07.01.2009 and 04.02.2009 and that he acknowledge the letters received for his appearance on 19.03.2009 to appear and produce the records. But he would only state that he is unable to attend the meeting on 19.03.2009 due to his ill health. The petitioner has not chosen to give any other reply. Baring this one letter dated 18.03.2009, the petitioner has not chosen to send any reply to the various notices issued by the first respondent. It is also admitted by the petitioner that the Block Development Officer has inspected on 01.10.2009 and found various anomalies. 14. When we analyse the present impugned notices, the first respondent, taking into consideration that inspite of the inspection of the Block Development Officer on 01.10.2009 and the various irregularities having been pointed out by the first respondent in the notices sent by him as well as the complaint of the Ward Members, the petitioner has not chosen to give any reply nor appeared in person, as directed. Therefore, the first respondent was left with no other option except to initiate the proceedings as contemplated under Section 205 of the Act. Before invoking Section 205 of the Act, the first respondent had issued notices to the petitioner, but the same were not responded to by the petitioner. In the impugned show cause notice under Section 205 (1) (a) of the Act, the first respondent extracted the various anomalies found by the Block Development Officer during the course of inspection. In fact, the Block Development Officer conducted the inspection after issuing prior notice to the petitioner and the other parties concerned. Such an inspection was conducted in the presence of the Petitioner. Therefore, the first respondent only asked the petitioner to submit his explanation for the various anomalies pointed out in the report. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the first respondent is only in consonance of Section 205 of the Act. The first respondent also stated that the various irregularities as found out by the Block Development Officer by itself would not mean that the first respondent has come to a conclusion or pre-judged the matter at the time of issuing the show cause notices. In fact, the impugned notices were issued to the petitioner so as to enable him to answer for all the irregularities or illegalities said to have been committed by him. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned notice issued by the first respondent under Section 205 (1) (a) of the Act. 15. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in (The District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat, Villupuram District and another vs. Devi Parasuraman and another) 2009 4 Law Weekly 778. The Full Bench had categorically held that even as per Section 205 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (1) of the Act, the Inspector has to give notice in writing to the President to offer his explanation in respect of his acts of omission and commission. In fact, the first respondent has only pointed out the omission and commissions, which have been pointed out by the ward members of the Panchayat as well as the Block Development Officer in the impugned notice. By the impugned notice, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation in compliance of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court. 16. As per sub-section (2) of Section 205 of the Panchayat Act, the first respondent, after considering the explanation, if it is satisfactory, would drop the further action with respect to the notice. If no explanation is received within the specified date or if the explanation received is in his opinion not satisfactory, he shall forward to the Tahsildar along with a copy of the notice referred to in sub-section (1) and the explanation of the President if received within the specified date with a proposal for the removal of the president for ascertaining the view of the Village Panchayat. Under sub-section 3, the Tahsildar shall conene a meeting for the consideration of the notice and the explanation, if any, and the proposal for the removal of the President. As per Sub-section 10, the views of the Village Panchayat shallbe duly recorded in the minutes of the meeting and a copy of the minutes shall forthwith on the termination of the meeting be forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Inspector of Panchayat. Thereafter, as per Sub-section 11, the Inspector may, after considering the views of the Village Panchayat in this regard, in his discretion either remove the President from office by notification with effect from a date to be specified therein or drop further action. In this case, the first respondent has complied with all these formalities and only thereafter, the impugned show cause notices were issued, but the petitioner, without even submitting his explanation has come forward with this Writ Petition. 17. The Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in has held in para-17 as follows:- "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 to drop 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ President." 18. Therefore, only in tune with the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court as well as the Act in following the principles of natural justice, the first respondent has issued the notice under Section 205 (1), which cannot be in any way vitiated. Hence, the writ petition No. 21564 of 2010 challenging the notice under Section 205 (1) (a) of the Act is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. It is always open to the petitioner to submit his explanation and thereafter, as per sub-section (2) of Section 205 of the Act, the first respondent, will consider the explanation offered by the petitioner and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 19. In so far as the challenge made to the notice under 203 of the Act, the main grievance of the petitioner is the proceeding under Section 205 (1) of the Act cannot be automatically followed by an action under Section 203 of the Act. Section 203 of the Act relates to emergency powers conferred on the Inspector of Panchayat and therefore, it should not have been invoked simultaneously during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 205 of