The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Inspector of Panchayat to provide justifiable reasons for differing with the views of the village panchayat before taking any decision to remove the President from office.

(K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.)

1. This writ appeal at the instance of the State, challenges the order dated 22 September 2010 in W.P.No.10632/2010 whereby and whereunder, the learned single Judge was pleased to quash the order passed by the District Collector dated 30 April 2010 removing the respondent from the post of President of the Jampadai Village Panchayat.

The facts in outline :-

2. The respondent was elected as President of Jampadai Panchayat, Villupuram District during the year 2006 for a term of five years.

3. While he was functioning as President, the District Collector, Villupuram, in his capacity as the Inspector of Panchayat, issued notice on 4 October 2007 invoking Section 205(i)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, alleging the following misconduct:-

(i) That you have incurred expenses without form 19 and sub vouchers;

(ii) Administrative sanction was accorded by the District Collector for Drought relief works in this office Roc.No.A8/2197/2007 dated 06.06.2007 and it was also ordered that the expenditure for work should be met from Panchayat funds. Besides not starting the work, sufficient funds also were not kept in the panchayat funds and thus misappropriated Panchayat funds;

(ii) Expenditure were incurred in excess of the ceiling limit fixed by the Government for the maintenance of hand pump, water tank and street light and also failed to obtain specific sanction of the Panchayat for the excess expenditure;

(iii) Entries were not made in the relevant records for the maintenance and procurement of spares for water supply and street light".

4. The respondent was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the office of President. The principal charge relates to incurring expenditure without entering the same in the statutory form and unaccompanied by vouchers. The respondent submitted a detailed explanation on 21 November 2007. However, it was not accepted by the Inspector of Panchayat. Therefore, the Inspector of Panchayat directed the Tahsildar of Sankarapuram to convene a meeting of the village panchayat to ascertain the views of the members of panchayat. The meeting was held on 6 March 2008. All the members who attended the meeting expressed their views unanimously that the explanation submitted by the respondent could be accepted and made a request to drop the charges. The Tahsildar submitted his report to the Inspector of Panchayat. Thereafter, the Inspector of Panchayat issued a show cause notice indicating that he is not accepting the views expressed by the Village Panchayat and as such, the respondent was asked to submit his explanation as to why he should not be removed from office. The respondent in his explanation stated that he was new to the public office and as such, during his first year, he has committed certain procedural errors and the same would not recur in future. In spite of the said explanation, Inspector of Panchayat passed an order on 30 April 2010 whereby and whereunder, the respondent was removed from the post of President. It was later notified in the gazette. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.10632/2010.

5. The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat, Villupuram in his counter affidavit justified the action taken against the respondent. According to the Inspector of Village Panchayat, the Panchayat had incurred expenditure from the Village Panchayat funds to the tune of Rs.1,78,527/- without the support of vouchers. The respondent was not in a position to submit satisfactory explanation and as such, it was construed that he has fabricated the bills to cover up the irregularities. The Inspector of Panchayat justified the other charges also in the similar manner. It was further contended that though all the members have expressed their opinion in favour of the respondent, they did not place any supportive material to prove the non-involvement of the respondent in the irregularities concerned and as such, the views expres