Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 16.11.2005 as published in the official gazette notification dated 23.11.2005. The petitioner was elected as the President of Aariyappapuram Panchayat in the year 1996 and after completing his first tenure he was re-elected for the second term in the year 2001 which is for another five years. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner he has made many developments in the village and he has put up many overhead tanks facilitating drinking water to every family. 3. In the year 2003, the Government of India had introduced a new welfare scheme to every village giving safe drinking water to each of the family and the scheme is called Juvajalthara Ghramam. As per the said scheme, the village people have to contribute 10% of the total expenditure and the remaining amount of 90% will be paid by the Central Government and this scheme is for providing drinking water to each family in every village. It is the Panchayat to which the petitioner is the President which alone has chosen to adopt the said scheme. 4. According to the petitioner, it is the Central Government which is the authority and the respondents have nothing to do with that. Being a District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayat-second respondent has been given power to supervise the scheme. Due to political enmity a false complaint was foisted against the petitioner and the Tahsildar has conducted an enquiry as per the orders of the second respondent dated 19.7.2005. In the meeting held at the instance of the Tahsildar on 17.8.2005, it was found that the allegations made against the petitioner were baseless and accordingly, a report was submitted to the second respondent. However, the second respondent without considering the said report has passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from the post of President and without giving proper opportunity. The said order of the second respondent was subsequently notified in the official gazette on 23.11.2005. According to the petitioner, the said order is passed in violation of Section 205(12) of the Panchayats Act. The said order of the second respondent was subsequently notified in the official gazette on 23.11.2005. According to the petitioner, the said order is passed in violation of Section 205(12) of the Panchayats Act. As per the report submitted, by the Tahsildar dated 17.8.2005, the Tahsildar has clearly informed that out of 13 members including the petitioner being the President, 11 members have opposed for any action against the petitioner and only one member has given consent for taking action against him. 5. In those circumstances, without following the procedure and without considering the report of the Tahsildar, the second respondent has passed the order erroneously. The second respondent ought to have given opportunity before passing the order under Section 205(12) of the Panchayats Act, 1994. It is further stated, the second respondent has passed the impugned order mechanically without applying his mind. That apart, it is also the case of the petitioner that inasmuch as the said scheme is the Government of India sponsored scheme, Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 cannot be pressed into service. The further case of the petitioner is that before passing the order by the second respondent, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to approach the first respondent for cancellation of the said order. 6. On the other hand, the second respondent has filed counter affidavit, and states that in respect of implementation of the said scheme out of 467 household water connection holders, 160 who have obtained the connections under the scheme have made a complaint alleging that excess amount have been collected by the petitioner. After conducting the enquiry the Block Development Officer had submitted his report on 29.10.2004. In the enquiry conducted by him, out of 160 complainants 95 have attended while the remaining 65 complainants have not participated. During the enquiry it was revealed that the petitioner has collected an amount to the tune of Rs. 1,46,960/- excessively and total amount of excess collection went upto Rs.3,64,560/- (Rs.2,17,600/- + 1,46,960/-) while it is true that in the minutes of the meeting of the Panchayat submitted by the Tahsildar one member has given consent to the removal of the President, the remaining 11 members voted against the removal. 7. 1,46,960/- excessively and total amount of excess collection went upto Rs.3,64,560/- (Rs.2,17,600/- + 1,46,960/-) while it is true that in the minutes of the meeting of the Panchayat submitted by the Tahsildar one member has given consent to the removal of the President, the remaining 11 members voted against the removal. 7. It was in those circumstances, a clarification was sought for from the Director of Rural Development, Chennai for taking further action, for the removal of the President, namely the writ petitioner. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Director of Rural Development has clarified that the action on the notice issued to the President may be initiated by applying the provisions of Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 at the discretion of the Inspector of Panchayats. According to the second respondent, after considering the views of the village Panchayat as Inspector, he can in his discretion either remove the President from the office by notification or to drop further action. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the legal opinion also sought for from the Government Pleader, Thirunelveli, who has opined that the Inspector can give his discretion. While it is admitted in the counter affidavit that the Inspector can analyse the minutes and independently can come to a conclusion as to whether the views of the members who supported the President are genuine. It is further stated that the Inspector need not take into consideration the majority of members in favour of the President especially when the same is detrimental to the Panchayat and there is a pendency of criminal case. It is also stated that the explanation submitted by the President for the notice issued by the second respondent dated 12.1.2005 has been carefully considered and the Personal Assistant to the Collector. Thirunelveli has been directed to enquire and the enquiry has confirmed the allegations levelled against the President as true. 8. Mr. K.V. Vijayakumar, learned Special Government Pleader has also produced the original records relating to the entire proceedings as directed by me. I have also perused the records and the documents filed along with the petition as well as the counter. 9. Mr. 8. Mr. K.V. Vijayakumar, learned Special Government Pleader has also produced the original records relating to the entire proceedings as directed by me. I have also perused the records and the documents filed along with the petition as well as the counter. 9. Mr. Issac Mohanlal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that when out of the total members of the village Panchayat numbering 13 including the petitioner as its President, 11 Panchayat members in the meeting of the Panchayat held on 11.8.2005 have decided in favour of the President and only one member has decided to vote against the President. It was the duty on the part of the second respondent being the authority empowered to pass orders to give proper opportunity especially when he has decided to differ from the decision of the majority of 11 members. It is this opportunity in such situation which should be deemed to be read as inherent under Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. 10. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since among all the members of the village Panchayat, it is only the President like the petitioner who got elected by the public voters, the removal of the petitioner as a President of the Panchayat will make him ineligible for election as a President until the date on which notice of the next Ordinary elections to the village Panchayat is published in the prescribed manner of the expiry of one year from the date specified of such notification. Therefore, the removal being a stigma or disqualification attached to the post of the President, its civil consequences and therefore, it is all the more necessary for the second respondent being Inspector to consider the views of the Panchayat in its proper manner. According to him, rejecting the views of 11 members of the Panchayat out of 12 excluding the petitioner as a President would amount to a different decision, against the decision of the village Panchayat, requires the consideration of the views in a more objective manner by scrupulously following principles of law. According to him, rejecting the views of 11 members of the Panchayat out of 12 excluding the petitioner as a President would amount to a different decision, against the decision of the village Panchayat, requires the consideration of the views in a more objective manner by scrupulously following principles of law. It is again submitted by the learned counsel that the discretion given to the Inspector under Section 205(12) of the Act contemplates, not amounting to mechanically arriving at a decision at the whims and fancies of the Inspector and the discretion in this present facts and circumstances ought to have been exercised in a more proper manner. 11. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a reading of the impugned order of the second respondent would show that it only reproduces in verbatim the entire show cause notice issued on 12.1.2005 and only in the last page a few lines have been included stating as if second respondent has carefully considered the views of the Panchayat to come to a conclusion that charges against the petitioner are proved. It amounts to non-application of mind on the part of the second respondent who is expected to act judiciously, since by his decision, it is going to result in the civil consequence of disqualification on the petitioner as the President. According to him, the concept of the principles of natural justice is inbuilt in such situation. The reliance stated to have been made by the second respondent on the discreet enquiry conducted by the Block Development Officer dated 29.10.2004 is improper inasmuch as such enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner without giving any opportunity at all. The refusal of the views of the Panchayat, namely, 11 out of 12 cannot be treated as proper consideration. 12. The learned counsel also relies upon some of the judgments to show that the opportunity should have been given in such circumstances. The reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court rendered in V. Subramani v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Chennai-9 and another 2001 WLR 617. In that case, while dealing with Section 205 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, this Court has held about the powers of the Inspector in a clinching manner as follows: "7. by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Chennai-9 and another 2001 WLR 617. In that case, while dealing with Section 205 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, this Court has held about the powers of the Inspector in a clinching manner as follows: "7. Section 205(11) of the Act empowers the Inspector to remove the President from the office by notification from a date to be specified therein or drop further action after considering the views of the village Panchayat in this regard meaning thereby that the said power has to be exercised only after considering the views of the village Panchayat. I have gone through the pro­ceedings of the meeting of the village Panchayat dated 15,10.1999 convened by the Tahsildar, Chengelpet pursuant to the communication of the District Collector, namely the 2nd respondent dated 18.9.1999 to consider the removal of the petitioner from the office of the President. The Tahsildar also recorded the views of the village Panchayat in the minutes of the meeting and has forwarded the said minutes to the Inspector, namely the 2nd respondent, who had passed the impugned order dated 4.4.2000 removing the petitioner from the office of the President only on the said views of the village Panchayat. I have perused the files made available to the Court by the learned Special Government Pleader and the copy of the views of the village Panchayat as communicated by Tahsildar to the 2nd respondent, in Na. Ka. No. 7413/99 A 1 dated 15.10.1999. In the said letter, it is stated that seven members attended the meeting on 12.10.1999 convened by the Tahsildar at 11.00 a.m., including the petitioner leaving only six members to express their views. Out of the remaining six members, four members did not vote and they remained neutral, two members voted against the removal of the President and none voted for removal. Therefore, the Tahsildar has forwarded the views of the members as there is no necessity of removing the President from his office. When the said views of the village Panchayat as communicated by the Tahsildar is in favour of the petitioner, I do not find any reason in the impugned order adduced by the 2nd respondent to reject the said views of the village Panchayat. When the said views of the village Panchayat as communicated by the Tahsildar is in favour of the petitioner, I do not find any reason in the impugned order adduced by the 2nd respondent to reject the said views of the village Panchayat. From a perusal of the entire proceedings of the 2nd respondent, it is very clear that the action against the petitioner has been taken on the basis of the complaint of the Vice-President as well as from the public. The Inspector having resorted to seek for explanation from the petitioner in his notice dated 16.8.1999 and after receiving the explanation from the petitioner on 23.8.1999, forwarded both the notice issued by him to the petitioner and the explanation offered by the petitioner to the Tahsildar, Chengelpet as per Section 205(2) of the Act, ought to have accepted the views of the village Panchayat as recorded in the minutes of the meeting under Section 205 (10) of the Act. When such minute specifically refers to the fact that the village Panchayat was not in favour of removing the petitioner from the office of the President. I do not find any justification for the 2nd respondent to pass the impugned order removing the petitioner from the office of the President completely giving a go by to the views of the village Panchayat. Going by the scheme of the Act, it is very clear that when the Inspector of Panchayat is conferred with a power of removal of the President, it should not be exercised arbitrarily and without application of mind to the facts of the case. In order to safeguard the interest of elected representatives from arbitrary removal, the legislatures have thought to impose the stringent procedures to be adopted by the Inspector of Panchayat before such an order of removal is passed. In fact the Inspector of Panchayat may on his own or on a representation in writing signed by not less than two thirds of sanctioned strength of the village Panchayat, containing the charges against the President and presented the same by any two members of the village Panchayat has to forward the complaint to the President for explanation. In fact the Inspector of Panchayat may on his own or on a representation in writing signed by not less than two thirds of sanctioned strength of the village Panchayat, containing the charges against the President and presented the same by any two members of the village Panchayat has to forward the complaint to the President for explanation. In the event, the Inspector of Panchayat is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, he has to forward the notice and explanation to the Tahsildar of the village Panchayat calling upon him to convene a meeting of the members of the village Panchayat and to forward the views of the said village Panchayat for taking further action. Therefore, unless and until the procedures contemplated under Sections 205(2) to (10) are strictly complied with, the Inspector of Panchayat cannot resolve to remove the petitioner from the office of the President by virtue of the provisions under Section 205 (11) of the Act. Admittedly, the Inspector of Panchayat namely the 2nd respondent, after receiving the complaint even though not presented to him in conformity with Section 205(1)(b) of the Act by two-thirds sanctioned in person to the Inspector by two of the members of the village Panchayat, had resorted to forward the complaint of the Vice-President and villagers calling for an explanation from the President under Section 205(1)(b) of the Act and after receiving the explanation and having not satisfied with the same, he had also forwarded a copy of the notice issued to the President under sub-section (1) of Section 205 and the explanation of the President received with a proposal for removal of President to the Tahsildar under Section 205(2) of the Act for ascertaining the views of the village Panchayat. Pursuant to that the village Panchayat expressed their views against the removal as communicated by the Tahsildar in his letter dated 15.10.1999. Therefore, when the view, of the village Panchayat were made available to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent ought not to have taken a different view than the one taken by the village Panchayat. Of course under Section 205(11) of the Act, the Inspector has got a discretion either to remove the President from the office by notification with effect from a date specified therein or drop further action after considering the views of the village Panchayat. Of course under Section 205(11) of the Act, the Inspector has got a discretion either to remove the President from the office by notification with effect from a date specified therein or drop further action after considering the views of the village Panchayat. Such a discretion cannot be arbitrarily exercised by the Inspector of Panchayat. It is to be borne in mind that there are no two views expressed by the members of the village Panchayat one for removal and another for not removing the President. The unanimous view of the village Panchayat is not to remove the petitioners from the office of the President. Therefore, there cannot be further discretion exercised by the Inspector of Panchayat for rejecting the only view of the members of the village Panchayat. Moreover the Vice-President, the complainant also attended the meeting but remained neutral and did not vote for removal of the petitioner from the office of the President. The object of the Act in providing a set of procedure cannot be lightly taken by the respondents and given a go by to the views of the village Panchayat. In that view of the matter, I do not find any justification in the impugned orders removing the petitioner from the office of the President completely ignoring the views of the village Panchayat. Further, in the absence of any reason adduced by the Inspector of Panchayat, namely, the 2nd respondent for rejecting the views of the village Panchayat, the impugned orders of removal of the petitioner from the office of the President is also unsustainable." 13. Relying on the said judgment learned counsel would state that this Court has categorically held that when the views of the village Panchayat were made available to the second respondent, he ought not have taken a different view other than the view taken by the village Panchayat. 14. Mr. Issac Mohanlal also relies upon another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pugazhendran, President Bramapuram Panchayat, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District v. B.G. Balu 2005 (1) CTC 545 . That was the case where the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, apart from many other provisions. That was the case where the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, apart from many other provisions. Even though that relates to the post of Vice-President unlike an elected post like that of the President, this Court has held that while taking away the powers of the Vice-President to operate the account along with the President as per G.O. Ms. No.92, dated 26.3.1997, the Inspector should have given notice to the Vice-President and an opportunity of hearing should have been given to him. The learned counsel would submit that when this Court has taken a decision that sufficient opportunity must be given even in respect of the Vice President which is not an elected post, the opportunity is all the more necessary when the Inspector decides to remove the petitioner as the President and therefore on the face of it, the decision is opposed to the principles of natural justice. 15. The learned counsel would also rely upon the other judgments namely Canara Bank v. V K Awasthy AIR 2005 SC 2090 : 2005 (6) SCC 321 : 2005-II-LLJ461; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and others AIR 2004 SC 1581 : 2004 (2) SCC 370 ; Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and others AIR 2001 SC 2524 : 2001 (6) SCC 260 apart from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and others AIR 1993 SC 935 : 1993 (2) SCC 279 to show that in respect of the statutes which empowers the authority to pass order with judicious mind the principles of giving opportunity and natural justice are implied. According to him, while taking such drastic decision which virtually amount to take a decision against the view of the village Panchayat, the second respondent ought to have given opportunity to the petitioner. 16. Per contra, Mr. K.V. Vijayakumar learned Special Government Pleader would submit that what is contemplated of an Inspector under Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 is only to decide based on records considering the views of village Panchayat in his discretion and there was no question of any opportunity that is contemplated under Section 205(11) of the Act. K.V. Vijayakumar learned Special Government Pleader would submit that what is contemplated of an Inspector under Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 is only to decide based on records considering the views of village Panchayat in his discretion and there was no question of any opportunity that is contemplated under Section 205(11) of the Act. The only matter to be considered is as to whether, while considering the views of the village Panchayat, the Inspector has exercised his discretionary power in a proper manner or not. 17. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the entire charges as narrated in the show cause notice as also the impugned order dated 16.11.2005 would show that there has been gross mal-administration of the Panchayat by the President. The learned counsel would submit that 95 persons have given evidence before the Block Development Officer to substantiate their plea that the President has collected more amount. This amounts to not only misappropriation of public money but also breach of trust and being an elected President the onerous responsibility on the petitioner was much more than a nominated member and in such circumstances the Inspector under the Act is expected to consider the interest of the Panchayat, while considering the views of village Panchayat. 18. The learned counsel would submit that a reference to the impugned order would categorically show that the second respondent has considered all records relating to the views of the village Panchayat including the report of the enquiry by Block Development Officer and taking into consideration the interest of the Panchayat and in public interest he has passed the impugned order which cannot be stated to be perverse. 19. It is the further case of the learned Special Government Pleader that even if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken under Section 205(11) of the Act as seen in the impugned order, the petitioner has got a remedy available by approaching the Government under Section 205(12) of the Act. The petitioner cannot bye-pass the said remedy available to him under the law and approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner cannot bye-pass the said remedy available to him under the law and approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel, in this regard would rely upon the order passed by this Court, dated 18.5.2005 in W.P.No.4383 of 2005 wherein while dealing with the decision of dismissal of President under Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, relying upon the earlier decision of this Court reported in Kandasamy v. Collector and Inspector of Panchayats 1976 (2) MLJ 182 , held that statutory remedy is available under Section 205 (12) of the Act by approaching the Government. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would confront this argument of the learned Special Government Pleader saying that the remedy stated in Section 205(12) of the Act is not a remedy of appeal. An appeal should be a statutory creation. What is explained under Section 205(12) is only discretion to the person to approach the Government and show suo motu power of the Government and may not be stated as a statutory appeal available to the petitioner. Therefore, according to him Section 205(12) of the Act cannot be a bar for approaching this Court. 20. At the outset, the question of alternative remedy, whether the same is available to the petitioner under Section 205(12) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 is to be taken into consideration before going to the other aspects of the case. While, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 18.5.2005 in W.P. No. 4383 of 2005 which in its turn relied upon the earlier judgment of this Court under the provisions of the earlier Act reported in Kandasamy (supra) contending that the remedy available under Section 205 (12) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 should be treated as appellate remedy and therefore, the petitioner if at all is aggrieved by the impugned order has to approach the Government. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 205 (12) which states as follows: "12. The Government shall have power to cancel any notification issued under subsection (11) and may, pending a decision on such cancellation, postpone the date specified in such notification." 21. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 205 (12) which states as follows: "12. The Government shall have power to cancel any notification issued under subsection (11) and may, pending a decision on such cancellation, postpone the date specified in such notification." 21. A careful reading of the said provision would show that it is no doubt a remedy available but the question is whether it is an effective appellate remedy. As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner if it is an appellate remedy it should be statutorily specific in nature. A reading of Section 205(12) would show that such right of appeal has not been given specifically or with statutory force. It is only in case where the right of appeal as a matter of right, the person who is entitled to prefer such an appeal will have effective right to enforce his argument against the impugned order. On the other hand, a reading of the said sub-section shows -that it is a discretionary right available to the petitioner who may move the Government for the purpose of cancellation of the order of the Inspector of Panchayats passed under Section 205 (11) of the Act. It also empowers the Government to suo motu take up any such order passed by the Inspector under Section 205(11) and cancel the same. Mere power on the part of the Government in cancelling the order of the Inspector issued under sub-section (11) and pending such cancellation power to postpone the dates specified in the notification under Section 205(11) cannot be termed as an effective appeal remedy. 22. As I stated earlier, having a remedy is different from having an effective appeal remedy. The remedy available under sub-section (12) is only to the discretion of the petitioner and he may move the Government at his discretion and that it does not give a statutory right on him. 23. In view of the same, I do not agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for e respondent that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner and therefore the writ petition should be dismissed. Now, the next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order could be sustainable as per Section 205(11) of the Act. A reading of Section 205(11) which reads as follows: "11. Now, the next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order could be sustainable as per Section 205(11) of the Act. A reading of Section 205(11) which reads as follows: "11. The Inspector may, after considering the views of the village Panchayat in this regard, in his discretion either remove the President from office by notification with effect from a date to be specified therein or drop further action.” shows that in normal circumstance when the village Panchayat takes a decision by a majority when the same is concurred by the Inspector, the consideration of the views of the village Panchayat by the Inspector is certainly different. While comparing to the situation like the present wherein out of total 13 members of the village Panchayat 11 members have taken a decision or viewed that the President should not be removed, and it is only one person out of total 13 has viewed that the President should be removed. Therefore, the term "views of the village Panchayat" which has been taken from and out of the report submitted by the Tahsildar should be taken only in its proper perspective, depending upon the nature and circumstances of the case and the same is not a mechanical exercise of power or it can never be stated that he consider any other factor. In such situation, the views of the village Panchayat should be deemed to be the views of the 11 members. Therefore, the question remains to be considered is as to whether the second respondent as Inspector of Panchayat has considered the views of the said 11 members which is deemed to be the views of the village Panchayat or not. 24. A perusal of the proceedings of the village Panchayat dated 17.8.2005 presided over by the Tahsildar and recorded by him in accordance with Section 205(10) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 would show that 11 members of the Panchayat have individually considered the various charges levelled against the petitioner being the President and given their views in favour of the President stating that the said amount have been spent with authority and also, holding that the charges are baseless. In fact, the 11 members of the Panchayat have agreed that since there was some delay in getting the amount for the project, the petitioner has deposited his own personal amount of Rs.2,10,000/- for the project, and that amount was later reimbursed to him and in those circumstances, the members were of the opinion that there was no substance or merit in the charges levelled against the President, namely, the petitioner. It is true that one Mr. Madakannu has not agreed with the 11 members and said that the charges are proved. The said proceedings of the Tahsildar are found in page Nos.337 to 342 of the file. 25. Therefore, the said proceedings should be deemed to be the views of the village Panchayat as per the terms of Section 205(11) of the Act. Unfortunately, in the impugned order, the second respondent has not even chosen to refer about the proceedings which are statutory in character as per the Section 205(10) of the Act except to say that he has considered the views of the Panchayat, On the other hand, a perusal of the impugned order would show that the second respondent has chosen to consider some report of the Block Development Officer dated 29.12.2004. 26. I have also perused the report of the Block Development Officer dated 29.12.2004 which is in pages 29 to 81 of the file. A perusal of the said report would show that no enquiry is said to have been conducted in the presence of the petitioner and he was also not given any opportunity by the Block Development Officer before conducting such enquiry and submitting a report to the Inspector, namely, the second respondent. The said report which appears to be the basis for passing the impugned order by the second respondent is seen in the, impugned order itself It is not a report recognised anywhere under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 especially Section 205 of the Act. While so, it is not known as to how the said report of the Block Development Officer dated 29.10.2004 who has admittedly conducted some enquiry without giving opportunity to the petitioner has been relied upon by the second respondent while passing the impugned order. 27. While so, it is not known as to how the said report of the Block Development Officer dated 29.10.2004 who has admittedly conducted some enquiry without giving opportunity to the petitioner has been relied upon by the second respondent while passing the impugned order. 27. Therefore, I am of the view that on the fact of it, the second respondent instead of considering the views of the village Panchayat, has considered some other report which is admittedly prepared behind the back of the petitioner and which cannot be the basis of exercising the discretion by Inspector under Section 205(11) of the Act, while considering the views of the village Panchayat. One another astonishing fact which needs to be explained in this case is that the second respondent has even referred the matter to the Government Pleader, Thirunelveli and got a legal opinion which is also stated to be one of the reasons considered by the second respondent while passing the impugned order as admitted in the counter affidavit itself. 28. That apart, as admitted in the counter affidavit, the second respondent before passing the order has even referred the mater to the Director of Rural Development for his view about the removal of the petitioner as President. Therefore, it is obvious that except the views of the Panchayat, the second respondent has taken views of everyone, namely, Block Development Officer, the Government Pleader and Director of Rural Development which are not the contemplation of Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 at all. 29. In this regard, the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that when serious charges are levelled against the petitioner as President, the second respondent being the Inspector cannot be a mute spectator simply because an overwhelming majority has supported him and in those circumstances, to show his bona fide in arriving at the proper conclusion, he has obtained views from various persons like Block Development Officer, Government Pleader, etc., which shows the bona fide conduct of the second respondent. Acceptance of such contention would result in a very grave consequences, for it would be not only against the very purport of the provision of Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and would open the gate of extraneous factors also forming considera­tion while exercising statutory powers. 30. Acceptance of such contention would result in a very grave consequences, for it would be not only against the very purport of the provision of Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and would open the gate of extraneous factors also forming considera­tion while exercising statutory powers. 30. On perusal of the entire records, I am fully satisfied that there is no proper applica­tion of mind by the second respondent as In­spector of Panchayat by considering the views of the village Panchayat. On this score itself I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the impugned order is patently against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. The one other question that remains to be an­swered is as to whether the second respondent has exercised his discretionary power prop­erly or not and he has followed the principles of natural justice. It is true that the bare read­ing of Section 205(11) would show that in normal circumstance the question of giving an opportunity, hearing the party, before passing an order would not have been contemplated by law makers. But in the circumstance like this wherein 11 members out of 13 have decided not to take action against the President and one member alone has decided for taking action, it is almost the absolute majority and views of the village Panchayat and when the Inspector while considering the views decides not to accept the views of the Panchayat, is the situ­ation which would not have been contemplated by law makers, the situation is totally different. 31. I am of the considered view that in an ordinary prudent manner, in such circum­stances, the principles of natural justice should be inbuilt. It was necessarily the duty of the second respondent to consider the entire issue: in a more onerous manner and atleast giving proper reason for taking a drastic decision against the President. 32. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for, the petitioner, by taking such drastic decision which is against the views of the village Panchayat not only the second respondent is deciding the issue under Section 205(11) of the Act but also inflicting a consequential damage to the petitioner by way of imposing the disqualification on him from contesting in the election for the post of the President. This situation gives responsibility on the second respondent to exercise the discretion in a better manner than mechanically deciding something based on some records. If the respondent has stated, enumerating the reasons for taking such a drastic action against the petitioner and also giving a special reason as to why he is forced to take a decision against the views of the Panchayat, there could have been some justification. Unfortunately, except reproducing the entire show cause notice and stating in the last four lines that he has considered the entire views of the Panchayat carefully, there is nothing in the impugned order to show that the second respondent has in fact applied his mind before passing the impugned order. The impugned order shows that as if the Block Development Officer has considered carefully, the entire complaints and not accepted the views of the President and therefore, it should be taken as a proper consideration by the second respondent which is only a farce. 33. It is further relevant to point out that the petitioner has in fact given a detailed explanation in respect of various charges levelled against him to the second respondent in his explanation dated 9.2.2005. The second respondent who has chosen to rely upon the opinion of the Government Pleader and report of the Block Development Officer apart from views of the Director of Rural Development has not even chosen to refer to the explanation submitted by the petitioner and that shows the total non-application of mind on the part of the second respondent in deciding the issue as laid down by this Court in the judgment reported in Subramani (supra) that the second respondent ought not have taken a different view than the view of the village Panchayat In the present case, the decision of the 11 members out of 13 excluding the President can only be deemed as the views of the village Panchayat. 34. Therefore, as laid down by this Court in the said judgment, apart from the views of the Division Bench in Pugazhendran (supra) which also relates to the issue under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is totally not in accordance with Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. Even on factual situation, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegation of misappropriation cannot be sustained. 35. A perusal of the entire records would also show that almost all the decisions have been taken by the petitioner as the President of the village Panchayat unanimously and in such circumstances, it is grossly improper for the second respondent to have relied upon some enquiry stated to have been conducted by the Block Development Officer and submitted a report on 29.12.2004 which is admittedly behind the back of the petitioner, for the purpose of inflicting a disqualification on the petitioner by passing the impugned order. 36. Therefore, looking into any angle the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and it is against the provision of Section 205(11) of the Act and is liable to be set aside along with its consequential notification. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside, the writ petition stands allowed. There is no order as to costs.