Removal of an elected Councillor requires specific allegations and adherence to natural justice principles, as a failure to provide a proper notice vitiates the removal order.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash GO(N).No.375, Municipal Administration and Drinking Water Supply Na.Ni.5(2) Department dated 07.11.2025 wherein the petitioner has been removed not only from the post of Chairman of third respondent Municipality but also from the post of Councillor of the 11^th Ward of the said Municipality.

(A) Facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows:

2. The petitioner herein was elected as 11^th Ward Councillor of Usilampatti Municipal Council on 22.02.2022. In the internal election process, she was elected as Chairperson of the Municipal Council on 04.03.2022. On 22.10.2024, the petitioner was issued with show cause notice by the first respondent invoking Section 52 (2) of Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act 1998 calling upon her to offer her explanation why action should not be initiated as against her. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 06.11.2024. On 18.11.2024, the first respondent had called for para-wise remark from the second respondent with regard to the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner.

3. The para-wise remarks were submitted by second respondent to the first respondent on 27.02.2025. Based upon the explanation and para-wise remarks submitted by the second respondent, the first respondent had issued G.O(N).No.41, Municipal Administration and Drinking Water Supply Department dated 26.03.2025 removing the petitioner not only from the post of Chairman of the third respondent Municipality but also from the post of 11^th Ward Member.

4. The order of removal was put to challenge by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.12614 of 2025. After considering the submissions made on either side, the writ Court was pleased to allow the writ petition setting aside the Government Order and remitting it to the file of the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent was directed to consider the explanation offered by the writ petitioner on 06.11.2024 and pass a reasoned order after affording opportunity of hearing to the writ petition.

5. In compliance with the order of this Court, the first respondent has issued a fresh show cause notice on 02.09.2025 calling upon the petitioner to offer her explanation why action should not be initiated as against her invoking Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act 1998. The writ petitioner had submitted her explanation on 19.09.2025 and another explanation was submitted on 26.09.2025. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the first respondent had issued the present impugned order on 07.11.2025 removing the petitioner from the post of Chairmanship of the third respondent Municipality and also from the post of 11^th Ward Councillor. The said order was published in the gazette on 07.11.2025. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(B) Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side:

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the first show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner on 22.10.2024 calling upon the petitioner to offer her explanation for five charges. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the first respondent has passed an order on 26.03.2025 removing the petitioner from the post of Chairman as well as 11^th Ward Councillor. The writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was allowed and thereafter, a fresh show cause notice was issued on 02.09.2025. The second show cause notice also referred to the first show cause notice dated 22.10.2024. According to him, the new show cause notice reveals only three charges as against the writ petitioner instead of fi