The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the procedures outlined in Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, including considering the views of the Village Panchayat before removing the President from office.

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.11.2009 passed in W.P. No.13084/2009, which was filed to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the Second Respondent dated 1.6.2009 and the consequential Notification issued by the Second Respondent and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part VI – Section 2 dated 1.7.2009 and to quash the same.

2. The Appellant herein was elected as the President of Eraiyur Village Panchayat during the period 2001-2006. Again he was elected as President during the period 2006-2011. 0n 29.7.2008, the Assistant Director of Panchayat, Cuddalore, conducted an inspection in the office of Eraiyur Village Panchayat. On such inspection, he found certain documents indicating that the expenditure incurred by the President of the said Panchayat under various heads were over and above the permissible limit. Therefore, the Second Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 19.8.2008 to the Appellant herein under sub-section (1) of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act asking him to show-case as to why he should not be removed from the said post as per Section 205(1)(a) of the Act. The Appellant submitted his explanation on 12.9.2008 to the show-case notice. Finding that the explanation offered by the Appellant was not satisfactory, the Second Respondent sent a letter date 30.12.2008 to the Tahsildar to convene a meeting in the Village Panchayat. Accordingly, on 19.1.2009 the Tahsildar convened a meeting and on the same day a resolution was passed not to remove the President of the Village Panchayat. The said resolution was forwarded by the Tahsildar to the District Collector. Thereafter, on 01.06.2009, the District Collector issued the impugned order removing the president from the office of the Village Panchayat and the same was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 1.7.2009. Then, it was served on the Appellant on 3.7.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant herein filed the Writ Petition seeking for the relief referred to above.

3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, while setting aside the impugned order dated 1.6.2009, directed the District Collector to give further notice to the President intimating the reasons for taking a different view than the one taken by the Village Panchayat and on consideration of the cause shown by the President, to proceed further. Challenging the same, the Appellant has filed the present Writ Appeal.

4. The main grounds related by the learned Council for the Appellant are that, the District Collector, without applying his mind to the report of the Tahsildar, had simply passed the impugned order dated 1.6.2009, which is illegal; the learned Judge, while quashing the impugned order passed under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, ought not to have given liberty to the District Collector to re-consider the matter; the observation made by he learned Judge that show cause notice was issued to the

Appellant on the basis that expenditure incurred by the Village Panchayat under various heads were in excess of the permissible limit and that the amount was spent without obtaining permission from the Appropriate Authority was incorrect; the show cause notice did not contain any allegation regarding the counter signature of the Assistant Engineer while the Appellant incurred such expenditure; the Appellant was not given any opportunity to explain as to why counter signature was not obtained from the Assistant Engineer after incurring such expenditure; the Panchayat is authorized to incur any expenditure and only if it exceeds the limit, the president has to obtain counter signature from the Assistant Engineer; the Appellant has not violated any Government Orders; the Charges found in the show cause notice were not proved; the reasons contained in the show cause notice; the impugned order had come to be passed without considering the explanation given by the Appellant and therefore,