Judgment : Per M.E.N. PATRUDU J. 1. Sanction is required for prosecution of a public servant on an allegation of offence committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharging of his official duties. 2. There is a bar under law and accordingly no Court shall take cognisance of such offence except with previous sanction. 3. In the instant case, the petitioner is a President of Village Panchayat. 4. The admitted case of both sides is that Sathur Taluk Police Station has registered a case in Crime No. 39/2006 under Sections 409, 468 and 477(A) of I.P.C. against the petitioner and another person and the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail. 5. Since a crime is registered, investigating agency is expected to conduct investigation and file a charge sheet or final report against the accused. The accused is President of Panchayat and sanction is necessary to prosecute him. 6. While so, Section 230 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 in short act deals with sanction of prosecution. It reads as follows: 230. Sanction of prosecution - (1) When the president or the executive authority or the chairman or vice-chairman of a panchayat union council or district panchayat or the commissioner or the secretary or any member is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Government. (2) When according previous sanction under sub-section(1), it shall be open to the Government to direct by order that the president, executive authority, chairman, vice-chairman or commissioner or the secretary as the case may be, shall not discharge his duties as such until the disposal of the case.” 7. Plain reading of the section clarifies that no Court shall take cognisance except with the previous sanction of the Government against the president or the executive authority or chairman or vice chairman of the Panchayat on accusation of criminal offence alleged to have been committed by him while action or purporting to act in discharging on their official capacity. 8. Plain reading of the section clarifies that no Court shall take cognisance except with the previous sanction of the Government against the president or the executive authority or chairman or vice chairman of the Panchayat on accusation of criminal offence alleged to have been committed by him while action or purporting to act in discharging on their official capacity. 8. Sub-section 2 of Section 230 of the Act clarifies that whenever a sanction under sub- section (1) is accorded, it shall be open to the Government by an order to direct the president or the executive authority as the case may be not to discharge his duties until the disposal of the criminal case. 9. The core question in this Writ Petition is when a sanction can be granted by the authority under Section 230 of the Act and whether sanction is accorded. 10. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order. 11. The impugned order is issued under Section 230(2) of the Act discharging the petitioner from the pose of president and directing the vice president of the Panchayat to discharge the functions of the president. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Additional Government Pleader. 13. Point Admittedly, the District collector is the Inspector of Panchayats. Cahpter X of the Act deals with controlling authorities and Section 199 onwards deals with powers of inspecting officers including the Inspector. 14. Section 203 of the Act deals with emergency powers of Collectors, the Inspectors. 15. Section 204 of the Act authorises the Inspector to initiate action on violations. 16. Section 205 of the Act clarifies that the Inspector can remove the president either on his own or on a representation and the conditions for such removal are highlighted in the Section itself. 17. While so, Section 230 of the Act deals with sanction for prosecution against president for criminal offences. 18. Thus, the first respondent/the District Collector of Virudhunagar District, who is the Inspector of the Panthuvarapatti Panchayat is having powers as mentioned supra. But, while exercising his power under Section 230 of the Act, he has to follow the mandatory requirements as stated under Section 230 of the Act. If the first respondent is initiating action against the petitioner and invoking the provisions either under Section 203 or 204 or 205 of Act, it is a different case. 19. But, while exercising his power under Section 230 of the Act, he has to follow the mandatory requirements as stated under Section 230 of the Act. If the first respondent is initiating action against the petitioner and invoking the provisions either under Section 203 or 204 or 205 of Act, it is a different case. 19. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed under Section 230 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994. When the provisions of Section 230 are invoked by the first respondent, he has to follow the mandatory requirements. 20. In the impugned order at para 1 and 2, the allegations are mentioned and charges 1 and 2 are also noted. While so, it is stated in the impugned order that for the said misappropriation of funds sanction was accorded to prosecute him under Section 230(2) of the Act as per reference 3rd cited. Unfortunately, there is no such reference in the impugned order. The references are only two. One is about inspection of the Assistant Director on 10.1.2006 and the second one is the proceedings of the District Collector on 10.1.2006 about the action taken against the other person. Thus, there is no reference of 3rd in the impugned order. 21. The order discloses that on the basis of a complaint by the Block Development Officer, a case has been registered by police. It further reads as per the Section under 230(2) of the Act, the petitioner is ordered not to function as president till the disposal of the criminal case and the vice president is directed to function as president. 22. Mandatory provision of Section 230(1) is that the sanction is necessary to take cognisance and the sanction has to be issued by the Government. There is no dispute that the District Collector is a part and parcel of the governance of the State. 23. While so, sub-section 2 of Section 230 of the Act clarifies that only after according the previous sanction, the Government can direct the president not to discharge his duties. Thus, the sanction is essential before issuing the impugned order and the sanction order is not produced before this Court. 24. The first respondent did not choose to file any counter affidavit. Reasons are not known. However, the second respondent, who is the vice president of the Village filed a counter affidavit. Thus, the sanction is essential before issuing the impugned order and the sanction order is not produced before this Court. 24. The first respondent did not choose to file any counter affidavit. Reasons are not known. However, the second respondent, who is the vice president of the Village filed a counter affidavit. It is not disclosing that when the sanction was accorded. 25. A plain reading of the impugned order discloses that there was an inspection by the Assistant Director on 10.1.2006 and thereafter, proceedings have been issued by the first respondent on the same day and the said proceedings are with reference to the suspension of part time worker. While so, the third reference is not produced before the Court. The details of 3rd reference are not mentioned in the impugned order. Hence, the Court is unable to verify whether there is a sanction. If so, who has accorded the sanction and when it was accorded. 26. Further, the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader and the learned counsel for the petitioner stated before this Court that investigation is still pending. If investigation is still pending, it is absurd to contend that sanction has been accorded. Normally, according sanction is the last step before laying charge sheet. The first step is registration of a case. Thereafter, investigation has to be proceeded and when a case has been made out, investigator has to file a charge sheet. Whenever public servants are to be charge sheeted, sanction is necessary under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So also, whenever Panchayat officials are to be prosecuted, sanction is necessary under Section 230 of the Act. 27. According sanction is not a mechanical act. The real test for the applicability of the Section is not the offence is being committed by public servants but it is committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. Thus, after collecting the entire evidence, the file has to be verified by the sanctioning authority by reading the evidence of witnesses, perusing the documents and applying judicial mind whether sanction is necessary to prosecute public servants. 28. Therefore, the contention that sanction has been accorded even when the investigation is pending is not permissible. 29. Thus, after collecting the entire evidence, the file has to be verified by the sanctioning authority by reading the evidence of witnesses, perusing the documents and applying judicial mind whether sanction is necessary to prosecute public servants. 28. Therefore, the contention that sanction has been accorded even when the investigation is pending is not permissible. 29. If the first respondent is of the opinion that allowing the petitioner to discharge any public functions is detrimental to the interest of Panchayat, he has to issue orders strictly in accordance with other provisions of Panchayat Act but not by violating the mandatory provisions under Section 230(2) of the Panchayat Act. 30. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, WPMP (MD) No. 3656 of 2006 is closed.