The main legal point established is that removal proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 must adhere to principles of natural justice, and actions such as divesting a Panchayat President of powers require statutory authority.

These two writ petitions are directed against the proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.9.2008, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the office of the President of Nangai Mozhi Village Panchayat on account of certain charges (W.P. (MD). No. 1066 of 2009) and divesting the petitioner of his powers to sign cheques (W.P.(MD). No. 1067 of 2009).

2. The petitioner is the elected President of Nangai Mozhi Village Panchayat and he was elected during October, 2006. The Village Panchayat has nine other ward members. The petitioner was discharging his duty to the satisfaction of the Panchayat as well as to the village people. He was instrumental in constructing the public lay out, backward class students hostel, overhead water tanks, providing cement road in the panchayat, besides making provision for sodium vapour lamp street lights, etc. The petitioner managed to get the funds from the constituency funds of M.L.A. and Parliament member and funds so allotted were all used for the betterment of the village people.

3. The Panchayat members belonging to Ward Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were not in good terms with the petitioner and they are from a different political party. Those three Councillors have been causing immense trouble to the petitioner in his functioning as the President of the Panchayat. They have been making false allegations against him with ulterior motives. They have submitted complaints before the first respondent alleging irregularities against the petitioner.

4. The first respondent, on the basis of the complaint preferred by the Councillors of Ward Nos. 1,3 and 4, initiated proceedings under Section 205(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 against the petitioner alleging as many as four charges. For the purpose of initiating the proceedings, the first respondent relied on the enquiry report submitted by the respondents 2 and 3. The first charge relates to the issuance of water supply connection to the village people without receiving the deposit amount and water connection charges. Charges 2 to 4 relate to misappropriation of funds without records. The enquiry conducted by the respondents 2 and 3 was not with notice to the petitioner and he was also not provided with a copy of the report. The first respondent, by placing reliance on the said enquiry report, issued the impugned proceedings. By way of a separate proceeding dated 30.9.2008, the cheque signing power of the petitioner was also taken away. While depriving the petitioner of his powers to sign the cheque, no mandatory notice was issued by the first respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to challenge the order dated 30.9.2008 in W.P.(MD). No. 1066 of 2009 issued under Section 205(1)(a) of the Act and the consequential proceedings in Na.Ka. Ác.5/2767 of 2007 dated 30.9.2008 in W.P.(MD). No. 1067 of 2009 issued under Section 203 of the Act.

5. Even though sufficient opportunity was granted to the respondents to file counter-affidavit, they have not filed counter in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the file.

6. Thiru. N.Dilipkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that there was no basis for the first respondent to initiate an action under Section 205(1)(a) of the Act against the petitioner. The learned counsel attempted to explain the falsity in the charges framed against the petitioner and as shown in the impugned order dated 30.9.2008. The learned counsel would further contend that the first respondent miserably failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 205 of the Act before issuing the impugned notice and as such, there is a procedural illegality in the impugned proceedings and as such, the same is liable to be quashed. It was the further contention of the learned counsel that in the meeting convened by the Tahsildar to asce