[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
N.Veerasamy vs The District Collector Cum Inspector Of ... on 6 March, 2026
W.P.No.18409 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 27.11.2025
Pronounced on : 06.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.No.18409 of 2025 &
W.M.P.No.20612 of 2025
N.Veerasamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats,
O/o. District Collectorate,
Chengalpattu District.
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayats,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Tiruporur Panchayat Union,
Tiruporur,
Chengalpattu District.
4.Mohan
5.B.Vijayalakshmi
(R4 & R5 impleaded vide
order dated 16.07.2025
made in WMP.No.24899 of
2025)
6.M.Saravanan
7.V.Vasanthi
(R6 & R7 impleaded vide
order dated 16.07.2025
made in WMP.No. 24937 of
2025)
... Respondents
Page 1 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
W.P.No.18409 of 2025
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.277/2023/A5-U.E(UU) dated 22.04.2025 and the
consequent notification published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette
No.187 dated 25.04.2025, removing the petitioner from the post of President
of Mambakkam Panchayat and quash the same as illegal and direct the
respondents to allow the petitioner to function as president of Mambakkam
Panchayat.
(Amended vide order dated 16.09.2025 made in WMP.No.37955 of 2025
For Petitioner :Mr.N.Subramani, Senior Advocate
for Ms.R.Vidhya
For Respondents :Mr.J.Ravindran, Additional Advocate General
Assisted by, Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fisal,
Additional Government Pleader
for R1, R2, R10 and R11 &
Assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, Government Advocate
& Mr.Alagu Gautam, Government Advocate
for R3
Mr.M.R.Jothimanian for R4, R5
Mr.A.M.M.Ramana for R6 & R8
Mr.G.Mohan for R7
ORDER
The petitioner was elected as the President of the Mambakkam
Panchayat situated at Chengalpet District. The District Collector initiated
proceedings under Section 205(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,
1994. A notice was issued on 04.05.2023. Five charges were levelled against
the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the same. He denied the
allegations made against him as false. The Collector accepted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
explanation of the petitioner and dropped further proceedings invoking
Section 205(2) of the Act.
2. The petitioner alleges that the ward members, who had initially
lodged a complaint with the District Collector, continued to harass him and
prevent the implementation of the Public works, that were being carried on
by him. The petitioner immediately addressed the District Collector on
05.07.2023 calling upon that authority to authorise him to perform the
duties of the Panchayat. The petitioner wanted the District Collector to give
such an authorisation invoking Section 204 (3) of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Act, 1994. He pleads that the District Collector did not act on
the representation. Instead, the District Collector passed an order on
31.08.2023 cancelling the functional powers of the writ petitioner and
entrusted the same to the Block Development Officer and the Deputy Block
Development Officer of the concerned block. The petitioner challenged the
said proceeding by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.29320 of 2023. This writ
petition was dismissed by this Court on 27.11.2023. Challenging the same,
the petitioner filed an appeal in W.A.No.922 of 2025. The same is pending
consideration.
3. The petitioner states that he was originally associated with the
ruling party of the State. After a new party was floated by a cine actor, he
shifted his allegiance to that party. On account of change in political
allegiance, the members of the ruling party started lodging complaints
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
against the petitioner. The Vice President along with three ward members of
the village gave representations on 06.03.2023, 20.03.2023 and 10.04.2023
alleging that the petitioner is functioning arbitrarily. They also complained
that the President was not convening the Village Panchayat meeting and was
indulging in corrupt practices, while granting approval for building plans,
levying taxes and in addition, was misappropriating Panchayat funds.
4. The first respondent, taking note of these allegations, directed the
second respondent to conduct an enquiry and also to inspect the relevant
records and registers. He, accordingly, did so and submitted a report on
13.04.2023. Apart from several other aspects, he pointed out that the
petitioner did not serve notice on all ward members, as required by law, for
the meeting conducted on 06.01.2023 and 02.03.2023.
5. The first respondent, taking cognizance of the enquiry report of the
second respondent, invoked Section 205 of the Panchayats Act and called
upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. This notice was issued on
04.05.2023. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.05.2023. After
the explanation from the petitioner, the first respondent yet again directed
the second respondent to inspect the Panchayat record and submit a report.
It was done on 19.06.2023. The inspection report informed the first
respondent that there were several procedural lapses and incurring
improper expenditure by the President and the Vice President during the
period 22.10.2021 and 23.01.2023. The lapses identified were as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
(i) The expenditure on street lights Rs.10,05,155/-
(ii) Water Supply maintenance Rs.18,02,497/-
(iii) Removal of debris generated in the Panchayat by hiring garbage
removal vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,98,400/- and
(iv) Repair to bus shelter of 99,900/-.
6. Being satisfied that the case had been made out for further enquiry,
the first respondent issued a show cause notice on 26.07.2023. The
petitioner and his alleged co-delinquent, the vice president, submitted their
explanations on 17.08.2023 and 16.08.2023 respectively. The first
respondent compared the charges as against the explanation and came to a
conclusion that the explanations offered are unacceptable. Therefore, he
proceeded as per Section 205(2) of the Panchayats Act. He directed the
Tahsildar, Vandalur Taluk, to conduct a meeting strictly in accordance with
Section 205 of the Act. The Tahsildar also conducted a meeting on
09.10.2024. In the same meeting, all the five ward members voted in favour
of removal of President and Vice President. Consequently, the Tahsildar,
Vandalur submitted a report of the meeting to the first respondent on
10.10.2024.
7. The first respondent, instead of removing the petitioner by passing
an order under Section 205, gave a further chance to the petitioner by
issuing a show cause notice on 30.10.2024. The petitioner gave an
explanation on 15.11.2024. Pending further action on the complaint, show
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
cause notice, meeting and resolutions; yet again, complaints were lodged
against the petitioner by the Vice President and ward members on
17.03.2025. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner was
arbitrarily passing resolutions without proper quorum in the meeting. The
meetings were said to have been held on 05.12.2024 and 25.02.2025.
8. The Assistant Director (Audits) submitted a report on 21.04.2025
relating to the allegations made against the petitioner and his additional
explanations. Thereafter, the first respondent perused the aforesaid
proceedings and came to a conclusion that the charges levelled against the
petitioner are proved. The five charges framed against the petitioner and the
explanations are scanned and reproduced hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
9. The charges framed on 26.07.2023, in view of the report of the
Assistant Director (Panchayats), and the explanation dated 17.08.2023 are
scanned and reproduced hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
10. The additional explanations received from the petitioner on
15.11.2024 on the notice issued by the District Collector on 30.10.2024 are
scanned and reproduced hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
11. The first respondent was satisfied that the charges had been
proved and passed an order on 22.04.2025. It was forwarded to the
Government for appropriate action. It was notified in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette on 25.04.2025. Challenging the same, the present writ
petition.
12. I heard Mr.N.Subramani for Ms.R.Vidhya for the petitioner,
Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General, Assisted by
Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal for the respondents 1, 2, 10 & 11, Mr.S.Rajesh,
Government Advocate for 3rd respondent, Mr.M.R.Jothimanian for the
respondents 4 and 5, Mr.A.M.M.Ramana for the respondents 6 and 8 and
Mr.G.Mohan for the 7th respondent.
13. After taking me to the charges, Mr.N.Subramani submitted that
the impugned order reflects patent non-application of mind to the
explanations that have been offered by the petitioner and the records
submitted by him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
14. He pointed out that insofar as charge No.1 is concerned, the
allegation was that no resolution was passed, prior to incurring the
expenditure with regard to replacement of street lights and that the bills
both bore similar handwriting and signature.
15. Taking me to the additional typed set-IV filed by him, he pointed
out that three persons had bid for the work, namely,
(i) Doshi Electricals,
(ii) Pradash Electricals and Electronics, and
(iii) SRS Niagara Power Saver.
He pointed out that the fact that the allegations are matching is absolutely a
false one and a perusal of the same, in page 14 and 15 of the said typed set
would reflect the same. In addition, he states that the Assistant Engineer,
Panchayat Union, Tiruporur has perused the quotations submitted by all
the parties and had come to the conclusion that the quote given by M/s.SRS
Niagara Power Saver is the most competitive one and accordingly, contract
had been given to the said entity.
16. Mr.N.Subramani pleads that the bills that had been raised are
supported by a valid resolution of the Panchayat in item No.65 of the
minutes book dated 15.02.2022. He points out that on this resolution, the
Vice President as well as the other five ward members had affixed their
signatures and therefore, charge No.1 is absolutely false. He points out that
the sub-charge to charge No.1 is that Form-17(e), which lists the working
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
and non-working lights, had not been filled up is also false. He relies upon
the documents filed at page 25 and 26 of the typed set-IV to point out that
the President had, in fact, maintained the records as required by law. To the
third sub-charge that the petitioner did not follow G.O.Ms.No.223, Rural
Development (P3) Department dated 19.12.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.149, Rural
Development (P3) Department dated 16.07.1998, he states that the charges
are vague as it does not state, which portion of the Government Order has
been violated.
17. With respect to charge No.2, Mr.N.Subramani points out that an
amount of Rs.3,98,400/- has been spent, without being recorded in the
measurement book or obtaining the approval of the overseer and the Union
Engineer before making the expenditure. He states that the agency, engaged
by the Panchayat for removal of garbage, was one M/s.Ragavendar
Reclamation Recycles, which had to remove the garbage from the dumping
sites and transport the same to the dumping yard.
18. Initially, the President sought time to produce records and
thereafter, did so by producing Union overseer certificate dated 03.01.2023.
He states that there is no rule to maintain M-book or taking signatures of
the engineer with respect to garbage. In any event, it is not a willful
omission or commission on his part in order to attract Section 205(1).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
19. On the third charge of incurring expenditure of Rs.18,02,497/-
towards water supply maintenance, which had been incurred, without
proper recording in the measurement book, Mr.N.Subramani states that the
same was recorded in the book maintained by the Union Overseer and
Panchayat Union and duly certified by the Assistant Engineer of the
Panchayat Union and by the overseer on 06.01.2022. He points out that the
allegation that there were no complaint as regards the lack of water supply
is a false one, since the complaint as regards salty water supply were
recorded in the complaint book as complaint Nos.36, 37 and 38 on
13.12.2021. The expenditure was also supported by the resolution of the
Panchayat in Item No.13 in its meeting held on 16.11.2021.
20. Yet again, Mr.N.Subramani pointed out that the allegation that the
Government Order was not complied with, is vague and cannot be a ground
to punish the petitioner. He points out that as to how he has violated the
Government Order has not been stated in the Show Cause Notice. In any
event, he points out that the District Collector had totally misconstrued the
Government Order holding that the expenditure of water supply
maintenance should not exceed 20% of the House Tax collection. Referring
to G.O.Ms.No.260, Rural Development Department dated 09.12.1998, he
points out that the Government had directed that not less than 20% of the
revenues collected from house tax should be spent on water supply
maintenance. Instead of reading it as 20% as the minimum limit for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
expenditure, he points out that the District Collector had read it as the
maximum limit of expenditure, reflecting non-application of mind.
21. Insofar as charge No.4 is concerned, for the expenditure that the
Panchayat had incurred to a tune of Rs.99,900/- for the maintenance of
Bus Shelter without the same being recorded in the measurement book,
Mr.N.Subramani points out that the same had been approved by the
Panchayat Resolution No.78 dated 15.02.2022 and had been duly certified
by the Engineer of the Panchayat Union.
22. With respect to charge No.5 that no notice had been issued for the
meeting held on 06.01.2023 and 02.03.2023 is concerned, Mr.N.Subramani
invites my attention to Rule 7 of the Panchayat Rules issued by the
Government in G.O.Ms.No.167, Rural Development Department (C4) dated
09.08.1999 to urge that the rule contemplates personal service and it had
been the practice in the Panchayat to inform the ward members about the
meeting in person. The petitioner had followed the practice and put each of
the ward members on notice about the meeting personally. Hence, there has
been no infraction of the aforesaid rule.
23. Leading me to the impugned order, he points out that after
reiterating the charges, the District Collector straight away concluded that
the charges had been proved. None of the explanations of the petitioner were
even considered. Mr.N.Subramani states that the impugned order speaks
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
about non-holding of the improper meeting held on 05.12.2024 and
25.02.2025, when they were not the subject matter of the show cause
notice. Hence, he pleads that the impugned order deserves to be set aside on
the following grounds:
(i) Non application of mind by the District Collector to the explanation
given by the petitioner;
(ii) The petitioner had given point-by-point rebuttal to the charges
levied against him.
(iii) The District Collector had relied upon fresh charges, which were
not the subject matter of the show cause notice and thereby, reflected the
pre-determined mind to remove him from his office.
(iv) The District Collector ought to have been careful, while exercising
the power under Section 205, when the petitioner is directly elected by the
public and the order removing him shakes the foundation of the democratic
process in the Panchayat governance.
(v) The action of the District Collector violates Article 14 of the
Constitution of India as it is arbitrary and capricious. The order is riddled
with mistake of facts and has violated Section 205 in all.
Hence, he pleads that the writ petition should be allowed and the impugned
order should be quashed.
24. In response, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General
submitted as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
(i) Against the impugned order, a remedy by way of revision is
available under Section 219 of the Panchayats Act and hence, this writ
petition is not maintainable.
(ii) As the procedural requirements of Section 205 have been followed,
this court should not interfere with the impugned order.
25. His plea being that interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is permitted only if step-by-step procedure
contemplated under the said provision is violated. He urged that admittedly
in this case, there is no violation of procedure and therefore, interference is
not permitted.
26. Expanding on this submission, he urged that the writ petition
seeks for issuance of writ of certiorari. This court should not issue a writ
examining the merits of the decision but should confine itself to the decision
making process. His last submission being that the petitioner has admitted
the charges and hence, he is estopped from urging otherwise in this writ
petition.
27. Referring me to the typed set of papers filed by him, he pointed
out that the District Collector received a complaint from ward members of
the Mambakkam Panchayat. He directed the Assistant Director (Panchayats)
to conduct an enquiry. The Assistant Director (Panchayats) conducted an
enquiry and submitted a report on 13.04.2023. On the basis of this report,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
the Collector called upon the petitioner to give his explanation to five specific
charges. This was on 04.05.2023. The petitioner gave his reply on
22.05.2023 to each of the charges.
28. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General points out
that for charge Nos.1, 2 and 3, the petitioner had accepted the allegations.
He points out that in the conclusion portion of the explanation, the
petitioner requested the District Collector to drop the proceedings. A month
later, i.e., on 19.06.2023, the District Collector caused an enquiry to be
conducted by the Assistant Director (Panchayats), who found certain
discrepancies to the tune of Rs.98,58,374/-. The Assistant Director had
framed five charges. The District Collector on 26.07.2023 recorded these
charges and issued a notice under Section 203 of the Panchayats Act. On
the same day, i.e., on 26.07.2023, the petitioner was issued another notice
under 203 and Section 205(1) in the show cause notice. By a response
received on 17.08.2023, the petitioner gave his explanation charge-by-
charge.
29. The Collector, having received the explanation, was not satisfied
with the same and consequently, directed the Tahsildar, Vandalur Taluk,
Chengalpattu District to conduct a meeting strictly in accordance with
Sections 205(3) to 205(10) of the Panchayats Act. Consequent to this
direction, the Tahsildar issued a notice to all the ward members and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
conducted the meeting on 09.10.2024. In the meeting, resolution of no-
confidence was passed by the majority.
30. Having received the report of the meeting from the Tahsildar, the
District Collector gave further opportunity to the petitioner to give his
explanation by his letter dated 30.10.2024. Having received this letter, the
petitioner gave his response on 15.11.2024.
31. Learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that pending the
show cause notice, two meetings came to be conducted, in which the
petitioner alone signed the Minutes and there was no signature of the ward
members. The same was the situation of the meeting held on 05.12.2024
and 25.02.2025.
32. Yet again, the District Collector by his proceeding dated
17.04.2025 directed the Assistant Director (Audit), Chengalpattu to conduct
an enquiry and to submit a report. Accordingly, he conducted an enquiry
and submitted a report on 21.04.2025 finding that the five charges framed
against the petitioner were proved. The Assistant Director also stated that
the explanation offered by the petitioner be rejected.
33. The Additional Advocate General pointed out that after referring to
all the proceedings commencing from 10.04.2023 till the report submitted
by the Assistant Director (Audit) dated 21.04.2025, the Collector passed an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
impugned order running into several pages. He states that the District
Collector had taken several efforts possible to comply with the procedure
contemplated under Section 205 and in fact, had been gone one step further
and call for a report from the Assistant Director (Audit), though such a
procedure is not contemplated under Section 205.
34. Learned Additional Advocate General states that the plea of the
petitioner that further enquiry report conducted by the Assistant Director
(Audit) was not served is untenable, because it had been done for the
satisfaction of the District Collector and at best, it is an internal
communication between one officer and another in order to get inputs from
the ground. Furthermore, he points out that it is not a new set of allegations
but a reiteration of the allegations found in the show cause notice that the
meeting was not properly held on 06.01.2023 and 02.03.2023.
35. By way of response, Mr.N.Subramani pleaded that the jurisdiction
of the court is not as restricted as pleaded by the learned Additional
Advocate General. He states that this court has the jurisdiction to see
whether any prudent person would have arrived at a conclusion that the
District Collector has. He points out that the records relied upon by the
District Collector for passing the impugned order are improper and the
charge relating to house tax relying upon G.O.Ms.No.109 is a patent result
of non application of mind. He states that when the charges are false, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
should shock the conscience of this Court and hence, petition under Article
226 is maintainable.
36. Mr.N.Subramani reiterated the contention that the basis of the
Section 205 proceedings should be a willful lapse, and as there is no willful
lapse and a mere oversight, a democratically elected person should not be
unseated at the whims and fancies of the District Collector. He states that
once the charges are flawed, the entire proceedings falls to the ground.
Finally, he points out that as stated by him in his response to the District
Collector on 22.05.2023, the petitioner had sent the notices for the meeting
through registered post with acknowledgment due and it was the members,
who did not participate in the same. For the fault of the members, the
petitioner cannot be visited with an order of removal. He states that no
records have been produced to substantiate the charges of violation of the
Government Order and hence, there is no necessity to response to that
submission.
37. I have considered the submissions of both sides and gone through
the records.
38. Since the plea of alternate remedy has been projected by
Mr.J.Ravindran, I will deal with the said objection before proceeding to the
merits of the case. It cannot be disputed that under Section 219 of the
Panchayats Act, the State Government is vested with the power to interfere
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
with an order passed under Section 205 of the Act. It is the plea of
Mr.J.Ravindran, that this provision should persuade this court to dismiss
the writ petition and direct the petitioner to avail the remedy available under
the said provision. This plea is rejected by Mr.N.Subramani pleading that as
there is a violation of principles of natural justice and since the alternate
remedy is not efficacious as the petitioner belongs to a party which is not in
the ruling dispensation, the writ petition is maintainable.
39. It is beyond cavil that the existence of alternate remedy is not an
absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. The Supreme Court
and this court have consistently held that the constitutional courts can
exercise its jurisdiction to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, when the following situations are presented:
(i) enforcement of fundamental rights;
(ii) violation of principles of natural justice;
(iii) lack of jurisdiction;
(iv) challenging the vires of a statute;
(v) cases involving pure question of law; and
(vi) when the remedy is ineffective/inadequate.
40. One of the grounds urged by the petitioner is that the impugned
order had come to be passed by the District Collector relying upon fresh
charges, which were not the subject matter of the show cause notice. This
plea, if accepted, would show the order is in breach of natural justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
Hence, I am of the view that the case falls within one of the exceptions
pointed out by the Supreme Court and this Court for exercising power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is going into
the merits of the case.
41. The proceedings impugned before this court are one invoking
Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act of 1994. Exercising this
power, the first respondent, Inspector of Panchayats, has removed the
petitioner from the post of President. As to how this power is to be exercised
has been settled by a Full Bench of this Court in District Collector and
Inspector of District Panchayat, Villupuram District and another v.
Devi Parasuraman and another, (2009) 4 CTC 609 and in The State of
Tamil Nadu and another v. S.Ramasamy (2011) 5 CTC 197 (DB).
42. The Full Bench had summarised its views as follows:
(i) The act of the Inspector under Section 205 is quasi-judicial in
nature;
(ii) If the Inspector is satisfied with the explanations submitted by the
President under Section 205, he is required to record his satisfaction to drop
proceedings;
(iii) If the Inspector differs with the views expressed by the Village
Panchayat and decides to remove the President or to drop the proceedings
against the President, he is not only required to record the reasons for
differing with the view of the Village Panchayat, but before taking any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
decision to remove the President, the Inspector is also required to provide
further notice to the President intimating the reasons for difference and can
issue a notification only on consideration of cause, if any, shown by the
President.
43. The Bench also pointed out that the order passed under Section
205 results in drastic civil consequences. If a person is removed in exercise
of the said provision, he would be ineligible for election as President, until
the date on which notice of the next ordinary election of the Village
Panchayat is published or the expiry of one year from the date specified in
such notification as postponed by the order unless the order has been set
aside by the Government. The Bench directed that the Inspector of
Panchayat has to evaluate the entire materials, including the views
expressed by the members of the Panchayat, on the particular misconduct
alleged against the President. The order removing the President should
contain reasons, which actually prompted, the Inspector to take the
decision. It cautioned against casual exercise in the power, since if elected
members are removed from the public office, it would shake the confidence
of the common man in the very system, and, the concept of local self-
governance would lose its signification.
44. The Bench also took note that the Panchayats are constituted by
Constitution by 73rd Amendment Act, 1992, under Part IX of the
Constitution of India and any provision, which seeks to take away the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
administration from the hands of the elected representatives, should be
interpreted in a strict manner.
45. The Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District
Collector, Raigad and Others, (2012) 4 SCC 407 pointed out that an
elected official of the local self-Government is to be put on a higher pedestal
than a Government servant, and therefore, for his or her removal, a
stringent procedure and standard of proof is required.
46. The key principles, which arose out of the judgments referred to
above, are
(i) That the decision of the voters in electing a representatives like a
President of the Panchayat is Supreme and should not be easily set aside or
interfered with lightly;
(ii) That the power vested with the Inspector of Panchayat to remove
an elected President is a drastic measure and such power should be
exercised in exceptional and compelling circumstances and not for flimsy
reasons;
(iii) That while exercising the said power, it is mandatory on part of
the District Collector to follow the principles of natural justice and afford a
fair opportunity to the elected official/President to present his or her case;
(iv) That a facet of the aforesaid principle is that the order of the
District Collector should be a reasoned one, which has properly considered,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
the explanations given in response to the Show Cause Notice that has been
issued to the President.
Keeping these principles in mind, this Court will now approach the facts of
the present case.
47. A perusal of Section 205 shows that it is mandatory upon the
District Collector to issue a show cause notice. A show cause notice issued
by the authority to an office bearer under the Panchayats Act calls upon him
to explain or justify the action proposed to be taken against him, and to
state why adverse or punitive action should not taken against him. A show
cause notice is founded on one of the fundamental principles of law, namely,
audi alteram partem. So that no office bearer is condemned or penalised
with removal from office without giving a fair opportunity to represent his or
her case.
48. By seeking an explanation under Section 205, the District
Collector statutorily notifies the office bearer, the specific allegations that
had been made against him, the breaches or misconduct that had been
committed by him and calls upon him to state whether he has any
satisfactory response to the same. By giving a response, the recipient
clarifies and, if possible, correct the situation, so as to ensure resolution of
the dispute at the earliest available opportunity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
49. The District Collector, while exercising quasi-judicial power, must
treat the issuance of the show cause notice as the first and most critical
step, prior to exercising the power under Section 205. While issuing the
notice, he defines the scope of actions that has been proposed. This ensures
that the decision-making process at the hands of the District Collector is fair
and transparent and thereby, in compliance with Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. It is only when the final order passed considers the
charges that have been investigated and proved during the course of
enquiry, can it be said to be in line with the show cause notice and the
procedure followed thereafter. In case, the impugned order exceeds the
allegation made in the show cause notice, then the order cannot be said to
be in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
50. The charges that were laid against the petitioner and his
explanations have already been extracted above. The District Collector in
addition to these charges, had added two new charges, namely, of not
holding a meeting in a proper manner on 05.12.2024 and 25.02.2025. This
shows that the District Collector had found the writ petitioner guilty of
matters for which he was not even put on notice. If the District Collector was
of the opinion that the meeting held on 05.12.2024 and 25.02.2025 was not
held in a proper manner, then nothing prevented him from giving a fresh
show cause notice on these charges to the petitioner and eliciting his
response.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
51. To rely upon matters which are not been found in the show cause
notice is ex facie in violation of principles of natural justice. When new
grounds are used for the purpose of passing an impugned order and the
same are absent in the show cause notice, the Supreme Court has held that
the proceedings initiated has to fail. (See, Commissioner of Customs,
Mumbai v. M/s.Toyo Engineering India Limited, 2006 INSC 571) (para
16). This view has been reiterated by the Delhi High Court in M/s.APN Sales
and Marketing v. Union of India and others, 2024 (7) TMI 1346. Hence
the first infirmity that the order suffers from is that the impugned order has
gone beyond the show cause notice.
52. If this court were to ignore the aspect of the additions made in the
impugned order and not found in the show cause notice, even then, the
impugned order cannot be sustained for the reasons set forth below.
53. It has now been established by several authorities that an
authority exercising the power which results in penal consequences, has to
substantiate the conclusion by giving reasons. Reasons, as is oft repeated,
are the heart beat of an order. If an order lacks reasons, then the order is
still-born. Law demands that an authority should give reasons in order to
ensure transparency, prevent arbitrariness, and also to ensure that a proper
judicial review can be made of the order impugned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
54. I rely upon a few judgments of the Supreme Court in order to
support this conclusion. The earliest of the case is Bhagat Raja v. Union of
India and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1606. The Supreme Court was dealing
with the situation of rejection of a mining lease by the State Government
and confirmation thereof by the Central Government in exercise of its
revisional powers under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and
Development) Act of 1957. The order passed by the Central Government did
not provide any reasons. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the
Central Government holding that the authorities exercising quasi-judicial
powers must provide reasons for their decision. Providing reasons were
deemed to be a principle of natural justice which enhances accountability
and fairness.
55. Three years after this judgment, the court was yet again presented
with the same issue in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others, AIR 1970 SC 1302. In this judgment, the Supreme
Court settled the principle that in administrative law, quasi-judicial and
appellate authorities must provide clear, recorded and communicated
reasons for their decisions. The appellants before the Supreme Court were
licensed sugar and flour dealers. Their licences were cancelled by the
District Magistrate of Fatehpur for certain alleged irregularities. The order of
cancellation was without any reason. The dealer filed an appeal before the
State Government. The State Government rejected the appeal and the order
of rejection did not contain any reasons either. Challenging the same, writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
petitions were presented before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court
dismissed the petitions, holding that under the relevant licensing order,
there was no necessity for the State Government to afford any reason for its
order. Aggrieved by the same, the parties approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court and quashed the
orders of the District Magistrate and of the State Government holding that
quasi-judicial proceedings implicitly demand furnishing reasons in support
of the orders.
56. The view taken in Bhagat Raja’s case and Mahabir Prasad’s
case was affirmed by the Supreme Court in S.N.Mukherjee v Union of
India, AIR 1990 SC 1984. The petitioner, Mr.S.N.Mukherjee was a Captain
in the Indian Army. He was officiating as a Major. During the course of his
service, he was charged with financial misconduct involving discrepancies in
contingent bill submitted at the Military Hospital at Jhansi. A General Court
Martial was instituted. It found him guilty as charged and passed an order
dismissing him from service.
57. Aggrieved by the said order, Mr.S.N.Mukherjee preferred a petition
to the Chief of Army Staff praying for non-confirmation of the sentence. This
petition was rejected. After the confirmation of sentence, Mr.S.N.Mukherjee
appealed to the Central Government. That too, was dismissed. Aggrieved by
the same, he approached the Supreme Court. The court held that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
administrative authorities performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions
must record reasons for their decisions, unless specifically exempted.
58. The consistent view of the Supreme Court, which has been
affirmed in Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another v. Masood
Ahmed Khan and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 496, is that quasi-judicial
authorities must provide reasons, as this requirement upholds the time
honoured principle of "justice must not only be done but, it must also
appear to have been done”.
59. A perusal of the present impugned order shows that the District
Collector had set forth, in a tabular column, the charges against the
petitioner and the response given by him. Thereafter, without any discussion
as to whether the explanations are satisfactory or deserve rejection, and
without giving the reason for rejecting the same, he has straight away
passed the impugned order.
60. Though the order runs into several pages, no reasons have been
set forth as to why the District Collector came to a conclusion for exercising
the power of removal under Section 205. Extraction of facts and immediately
giving the conclusion without the limb of reasons joining that too, cannot be
held as satisfying the requirements of a duty to furnish reasons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
61. Though Mr.N.Subramani wanted me to go into the merits of the
charges and the explanations given by him, I am not inclined to do the said
exercise in this proceeding, since I have found that the order suffers from
the vices of violation of principles of natural justice. When the Court comes
to a conclusion that the order violates the principles of natural justice, the
settled procedure that has been followed by the constitutional court is to set
aside the order and restore the proceedings on to the file of the authority so
as to enable that authority to re-do the said exercise.
62. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition stands
allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The proceeding initiated against
the writ petitioner under Section 205 stands restored on to the file of the
first respondent. The first respondent need not initiate de novo proceedings.
He shall peruse the records afresh and hear the petitioner on his
explanation and pass appropriate orders. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.03.2026
nl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
To
1.The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats,
O/o. District Collectorate,
Chengalpattu District.
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayats,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Tiruporur Panchayat Union,
Tiruporur,
Chengalpattu District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN. J,
nl
06.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 01:25:37 pm )
