The judgment established the principle that the removal of an elected representative under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, must adhere to the quasi-judicial nature of the power and the mandatory procedure prescribed by the Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for all the records pertaining to the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent vide Na.Ka.No.530/2022/A1 dated 26.04.2023 and to quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st respondent to drop the removal proceedings initiated under Section 205 of Tamil nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for all the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.530/2022/m1 dated 4.5.2023 which served to the petitioner on 12.05.2023 and consequential gazette notification No.VI(2)/8(a)/2023 dated 12.5.2023 effect by 2nd respondent which served to the petitioner on 16.5.2023 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional.)

Common Order:

1. The petitioner is the President of Bodipatti Village Panchayat. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 26.04.2023, initiated u/s.205 of the Panchayats Act, 1994 [hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') in WP.No.15142 of 2023. The second writ petition has been filed in WP.No.15773 of 2023, challenging the impugned proceedings of the District Collector (2nd respondent), dated 04.05.2023, removing the petitioner from the Post of President of the Village Panchayat in exercising powers u/s 205(11) of the Act.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was elected as the President of the Village Panchayat during December 2020. It is stated that there are totally 12 wards which comes under the above said Village Panchayat. The District Collector issued a show cause notice dated 06.01.2023 u/s 205(1) of the Act by levelling 16 charges against the petitioner. The petitioner gave an explanation dated 31.01.2023 for the show cause notice and denied all the charges. The District Collector called for further explanation from the petitioner and the petitioner also gave his further explanation dated 03.03.2023 and explained the various expenditures that were incurred by the Panchayat during the relevant point of time and supporting materials were also sent along with the reply.

3. The petitioner was served with the impugned notice dated 26.04.2023 by the District Collector calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why he should not be removed from the post of President of the Village Panchayat. This notice was put to challenge in WP.No.15142 of 2023 and this writ petition was filed on 09.05.2023. By the time this writ petition was filed, the impugned order dated 04.05.2023, came to be passed by the District Collector removing the petitioner from the post of President of the Village Panchayat. This order was served on the petitioner on 12.05.2023 and the subsequent writ petition in WP.No.15773 of 2023, came to be filed on 18.5.2023.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner apart from arguing the case on merits, also pointed out to the non-compliance of the mandatory procedure as stipulated u/s 205 of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the entire proceedings of the District Collector was done in a haste. To substantiate the said submission, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the District Collector did not record any reasons in writing for arriving at the conclusion and if in case any such reasons were recorded, it was not furnished to the petitioner. That apart, the learned Senior Counsel also pointed out to the fact that the 6th respondent did not give 7 clear days notice before convening the meeting of the Panchayat as mandated u/s 205(4) of the Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the 4th respondent had issued notice dated 17.04.2023 and the members were s