ORDER Dixit C. J. - 1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays that a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing a resolution dated 22nd June 1963 of the Administrative Committee of the Janapada Sabha, Rajnandgaon, removing him from service as also the decision of the Additional Collector, Durg, upholding in appeal the decision of the Administrative Committee. 2. The petitioner was employed as Headmaster, Badgaon school, run and managed by the Janapada Sabha. In 1963 an enquiry was held by Shri Baldau Ram Mahobe, Janapada Sabha School Inspector, against the petitioner on charges of absence from duty during certain periods, failure to exercise proper supervision over the working of the assistant teacher, failure to maintain proper relations with the villagers and the members of the school committee, and unsatisfactory examination results. At the end of the enquiry, the Inspector reported that all the charges had been established against the petitioner. The report of the Enquiry Officer was taken up for consideration by the Administrative Committee of the Janapada Sabha at a meeting held on 2nd June 1963. At this meeting 11 members of the Janapada Sabha including the Chairman were present. All the members accepted the report of the Inspector and thought that some action should be taken against the petitioner. But they were all divided as to the penalty to be imposed on the petitioner. Four of the members were of the opinion that the applicant should be removed from service. One suggested that he should be warned, his increment for one year should be stopped and he should be transferred. Another member proposed that the applicant should be transferred. Four members thought that the penalty of reversion should be imposed on the applicant. The Chairman took the view that as four members were in favour of removal of the petitioner from service and four others were for his reversion, there was an equality of votes on the question of the punishment to be inflicted on the applicant and that he was, therefore, entitled to exercise his casting vote. Accordingly the Chairman gave his casting vote for the removal of the petitioner. 3. Accordingly the Chairman gave his casting vote for the removal of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner contends that there was no majority decision at all of the Administrative Committee to remove him from service; that whereas only four members were of the view that he should be removed from service, all others proposed different punishment; that there was not even an equality of votes on the question whether the punishment of removal should be awarded to him; and that, therefore, the Chairman was not entitled to exercise his casting vote. The applicant's further objection is that the enquiry which the Inspector held was behind his back and was not in conformity with the Rules framed under section 182 (2) (xv) of the Central Provinces & Berar Local Government Act, 1948, and, that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we have reached the conclusion that the application must be granted. Section 45 (1) of the Act, so far as it is material here, is as follows : "45 (1) Except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, all questions brought before any meeting held under this Act shall be decided by a majority of the votes of the members present, and, in the case of an equality of votes the presiding authority at the meeting shall have a second or casting vote" : It is clear from this provision that any decision of the Administrative Committee on any question in order to be valid and binding must be one taken by the majority of the Administrative Committee. The Chairman has been given a casting vote; but that can be exercised only when there is an equality of votes on the question. In the present case, though all the members of the Administrative Committee were agreed on the question that the Inspector's report should be accepted and some punishment should be given to the petitioner, there was no agreement whatsoever between them as to the specific punishment to be awarded to the applicant. Of the 11 members of the Committee, only four were of the opinion that the petitioner should be removed from service of the remaining members, some suggested the punishment of reversion and others of warning and transfer. Of the 11 members of the Committee, only four were of the opinion that the petitioner should be removed from service of the remaining members, some suggested the punishment of reversion and others of warning and transfer. Thus there was no majority at all in favour of the punishment of removal; nor was there any equality of votes on this question. It cannot, therefore, be held that the removal of the petitioner from service was as a result of the majority decision of the Administrative Committee. The Chairman was clearly in error when he thought that four members were in favour of the punishment or removal and only four members, who had recommended the punishment of reversion, were against it. He overlooked the fact that two other members who had suggested the punishment of warning and transfer were also against the punishment of removal being awarded to the applicant. Thus, there was no equality of votes on the question of the imposition of the punishment or removal and the Chairman was not entitled to exercise his casting vote. It seems that at the meeting the Chairman did not follow the proper procedure for ascertaining the majority view of the Administrative Committee on the question of punishment. He allowed each member to suggest the punishment which in his opinion should be given to the applicant. If instead of dong this, he had put the question of specific punishment to the vote of the Committee, he would have correctly assessed the majority view of the Committee on the question of punishment. After finding that all members were agreed that some action should be taken against the applicant, the Chairman should have proceeded to put to vote the question whether the petitioner should be dismissed or removed from service. If, on such a question being put, the majority was found to be against the award of punishment of removal, the Chairman should have then put to vote of the Committee the next punishment that could be awarded to the applicant. If he had followed this course, then he would have been able to ascertain properly the majority view as regards the punishment to be imposed on the applicant. If he had followed this course, then he would have been able to ascertain properly the majority view as regards the punishment to be imposed on the applicant. The decision to remove the petitioner from service being the view of only four of the eleven members of the Administrative Committee cannot in any sense be regarded as the majority view of the Administrative Committee. That being so, it cannot operate as a legal and binding decision of the Committee. 5. As the petitioners' removal from service is altogether illegal and ineffective, it is not necessary to consider the petitioner's objection that the enquiry held by the Inspector was not in conformity with the Rules and that he was not given a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against the charges. 6. For these reasons, this petition is allowed. The resolution dated 22nd June 196e, which was communicated to the petitioner by the Chief Executive Officer on 20th July 1963, is quashed. The decision of the Additional Collector upholding the resolution of the Janapada Sabha is also quashed. The petitioner shall have costs of this application from the respondent Sabha. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 50. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.