Judgment : 1. This writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the first respondent dated 25.7.2007 and the consequential notice issued by the second respondent on 23.1.2008. 2. The petitioner is the President of Kulasekarapatty Village Panchayat, Keelapavoor Village, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. He was elected to that post in the local body election held in the year 2006. He has been carrying out the functions of the Office of the President from 25.10.2006 as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act (“the Act” for short) and he is also responsible for some of the functions carried out by his subordinates. 3. However, during his tenure, the first respondent has directed the Block Development Officer and the Extension Officer (Panchayat) to conduct inspection jointly and file a report over some of the issues relating to the use of the funds of the village Panchayat. Accordingly, the said Block Development Officer, without giving any notice to the petitioner, has filed a report on 7.6.2007 to the first respondent and thereafter, the Assistant Director of Village Panchayat had made an inspection on 16.6.2007 and filed a report to the first respondent based on which the first respondent had issued a show-cause notice on 25.7.2007 under Section 205(i) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation with regard to certain allegations of misappropriation of funds and also directed the petitioner to produce certain documents. 4. The petitioner has challenged the above notice by filing a writ petition in W.P. No. 8079 of 2007 and this Court on consideration of the case of the petitioner, has disposed of the said writ petition on 28.9.2007 with a direction to the second respondent to permit the petitioner to inspect the documents mentioned in the representation dated 11.9.2007 during working hours at the office of the second respondent. In the said order, the petitioner was also permitted to take notes from those documents if he so desired in order that he could defend himself in the enquiry. It was further ordered therein that sufficient opportunity shall be given to the petitioner before initiating further proceedings against him under Section 205 of the Act. 5. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner has made an application to the first respondent on 9.1.2008 asking for three documents specifically relating to a proceedings of a logbook of 6 of 2007. 5. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner has made an application to the first respondent on 9.1.2008 asking for three documents specifically relating to a proceedings of a logbook of 6 of 2007. He has also addressed a letter dated 9.1.2008 to the Block Development Officer stating that only after receipt of the three documents, he can submit his explanation. However, the second respondent has come out-with a notice on 23.1.2008 intimating the Panchayat members of convening a meeting on 7.2.2008 to remove the petitioner from the office of President. Thus, having been aggrieved by the proceedings dated 25.7.2007 of the first respondent as well as the consequential notice dated 23.1.2008 of the second respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 6. The first respondent has filed counter contending that during the inspection conducted on 7.6.2007, the accounts of the Panchayat were verified and it was found that the petitioner had misappropriated the funds of Village Panchayat; based on the report of the Block Development Officer(Village Panchayat), the Assistant Director of Rural Development (Panchayat), Tirunelveli inspected the said Village Panchayat on 15.6.2007 and found that the President had misappropriated the funds to the tune of Rs. 11,41,746; therefore, a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner by the first respondent on 25.7.2007 under Section 205(1)(a) of the Act registering 16 charges against the petitioner and he had been asked to submit his explanation within 15 days from the receipt- of the show-cause notice; the petitioner had received the show cause notice on 2.8.2007; in his representation dated 13.8.2007, he had requested 30 days time to submit his explanation to the charges framed against him; but he has not done so even after the expiry of the said period; therefore, a decision to remove him from the Office of the President had been taken and the Tahsildar/second respondent had been asked to convene a meeting of the Village Panchayat in the proceedings dated 19.9.2007 of the Collector and Inspector of Panchayat under Section 205(2) of the Act; accordingly, the Tasildhar had sent notice to the members of the Village Panchayat including the President and the Vice President stating that a meeting would be convened on 30.10.2007. 7. 7. It has been further stated in the counter that based on the order of this Court in W.P. No. 8079 of 2007, the records of the Village Panchayat regarding the criminal complaint against the President and Vice President of the Village Panchayat which were handed over in the District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli have been obtained and copies had been taken and then sent to the petitioner on 4.1.2008 through the Block Development Officer; even though the petitioner had acknowledged the same on 4.1.2008, he had failed to submit his explanation on the charges framed against him; the Tahsildar had been asked in the proceedings dated 20.1.2008 of the first respondent to convene a meeting of the Village Panchayat and to proceed under Section 205(2) of the Act and accordingly, the Tahsildar, had sent notice to the members of the Village Panchayat including the petitioner and the Vice President stating that the said meeting would be convened on 7.2.2008; however, the petitioner, in his letter dated 20.1.2008, had informed that he had been supplied copies of certain documents only on 4.1.2008 and that a copy of the diary of the Block Development Officer (Panchayat) and the Assistant Director of Rural Development (Panchayat) and also extract of the logbook of the Jeep in which they travelled had not been supplied to him; it was examined and opined by the respondents that the records required by him are not relevant to the charges framed against him and he only intends to drag on the matter and therefore, they have decided to proceed further inasmuch as there was no explanation from the petitioner; thereafter, a meeting of the Panchayat was convened on 7.2.2008 as scheduled and the Tahsildar, Tenkasi/the second respondent had sent his report on that date i. e. 7.2.2008 itself along with a copy of the minutes of the Village Panchayat; on that basis, the respondents have examined the issues under Section 205 (11) of the Act and it, has been decided to remove the petitioner from the office of the President for the irregularities/ malpractices/misappropriation of funds/falsification of accounts to the tune of Rs. 11,41,746/-; accordingly, a notification under Section 205(11) of the Act, removing the petitioner from the Office of the President has been approved, on 8.2.2008 and the same has been sent to the Tamil Nadu Government for publication in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and hence, the petitioners challenge is untenable and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T. Raja, Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously contended that though the impugned show cause notice has been issued under Section 205(1) of the Act, the provision in the said Section has not been complied with. In other words, according to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the first respondent can proceed only on issuance of notice in writing to the President to offer, within a specified date, his explanation with respect to his acts of omission or commission mentioned in the notice and without complying with the above provisions, the first respondent has pre-determined the issue and proceeded further under Section 205(2) of the Act. It is also his contention that the first respondent has not applied his mind to the provisions of the Act while removing the petitioner from the office of the President. 10. It has been further contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the documents required by the petitioner to prove his innocence have not been furnished to him despite the order of this Court dated 28.9.2007 in the writ petition filed by the petitioner to this effect without which he was not in a position to submit his explanation and his request for furnishing of documents ought to have been considered in the light of the order of this Court dated 28.9.2007 and the non-furnishing of the documents is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 11. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General has guided this Court on the various provisions of the Act to substantiate that the impugned show cause notice issued by the first respondent is totally in compliance with Section 205(1)(a) of the Act. 11. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General has guided this Court on the various provisions of the Act to substantiate that the impugned show cause notice issued by the first respondent is totally in compliance with Section 205(1)(a) of the Act. In support of his contention, he has referred to Section 199 of the Act and indicated that the Collector who is the Inspector of the Panchayat has the power to appoint an officer and to supervise and inspect and that this inspecting power is also available under Section 200 of the Act, By drawing my attention to the order of this Court passed on 28.9.2007, he has contended that no permission has been given in the said order to furnish the entire documents and that the Court has only directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to inspect the documents and accordingly, the said direction of this Court has been complied with and thereafter, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to prove his innocence by submitting his explanation, but, instead, he had insisted upon to furnish the further documents in order to drag on the proceedings. 12. The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that in the absence of any explanation from the petitioner, the respondents have proceeded further by convening a meeting on 7.2.2008 under Section 205(3) of the Act, after following the procedure contemplated and they have passed a resolution in removing the petitioner and the same has been sent to the Government for notification as per the resolution dated 8.2.2008. He has also contended that in the absence any plea in the affidavit to the effect that the action of the respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice, the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in this regard, cannot be considered by this Court. 13. I have given heedful attention to the arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 14. It is seen that the President has been elected in the local body election held in the year 2006 and from 25.10.2006, he has been functioning as President. It is also seen that there was an inspection on 7.6.2007 and a report was submitted by the Block Development Officer. 14. It is seen that the President has been elected in the local body election held in the year 2006 and from 25.10.2006, he has been functioning as President. It is also seen that there was an inspection on 7.6.2007 and a report was submitted by the Block Development Officer. Thereafter, there was an inspection by the Assistant Director of Village Panchayat on 16.6.2007 based on which the first respondent who is also the Inspector of Panchayat has proceeded with the matter and a show cause notice has been issued. Pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P. No. 8079 of 2007, the petitioner has made a request for furnishing some more documents in his letter dated 9.1.2008 and his request was examined and it was ultimately found they were not relevant. Finding that the petitioner is not able to submit his explanation, the first respondent has proceeded further and convened a meeting on 7.2.2008 and passed the resolution on 8.2.2008 and thereby removed the petitioner from the Office of the President and the same has been sent to the Government for Gazette notification. At this stage, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition. 15. Before proceeding to consider the case of the petitioner, it would be appropriate for this Court to look into the order passed by this Court on 7.2.2008 in M.P. No. 2 of 2008 in this petition which reads as follows: “Mr. R. Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. He seeks time for getting instructions. Post on 21.2.2008. The first respondent shall not pass any further orders pursuant to the resolution if any passed by the Kulasekarapatty Village Panchayat in the meeting said to have taken place on 7.2.2008 at 11.00 a.m. without obtaining prior permission from this Court.” 16. Pursuant to the above order, a telegram has been sent on 9.2.2008 to the Assistant Director of Panchayat by the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader also has sent a telegram to the first respondent on 11.2.2008. It is seen that the above telegrams have been sent to the respondents intimating the order of this Court. Certain correspondences have taken place before filing of the counter affidavit and only subsequently, the counter affidavit has come to be filed. 17. It is seen that the above telegrams have been sent to the respondents intimating the order of this Court. Certain correspondences have taken place before filing of the counter affidavit and only subsequently, the counter affidavit has come to be filed. 17. The main grievance of the petitioner appears to be that, as per the order dated 28.9.2007 passed by this Court, he ought to have been given the documents which were sought by him to enable him to defend his case by submitting his explanation. No doubt, the petitioner has subsequently approached the Information Officer concerned and obtained certain documents subsequent to which he is under the obligation to respond to the show cause notice by submitting his explanation and thereafter, the respondents have to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 18. Before the submission of explanation by the petitioner, the first respondent has proceeded further considering that the documents sought by the petitioner are not relevant for submitting his explanation and the petitioner has rushed to this Court immediately and this Court, on consideration of his case, has passed an order directing the first respondent not to pass any further orders pursuant to the resolution if any passed by the Kulasekarapatty Village Panchayat in the meeting said to have been held on 7.2.2007 at 11 a.m., without obtaining prior permission from this Court. This order has been made available to the respondents on 9.2.2008 by the petitioner and also on 11.2.2008 by the telegram sent by the learned Special Government Pleader. In such circumstances, it is the obligation of the respondents to comply with the order of this Court and they cannot proceed further in respect of the meeting convened on 7.2.2008 and also the resolution. Pursuant to that, a meeting has been convened and resolution has been passed on 8.2.2008 itself and the same has been sent to the Government. Because of the delay in communicating the order, the respondents have proceeded with the resolution on 8.2.2008 and however, on receipt of the communication on 9.2.2008, the impugned proceedings passed in the meeting convened on 7.2.2008 and the resolution passed on 8.2.2008 have been kept in abeyance and this is not disputed by any of the parties and therefore, in view of the implementation of the order of this Court dated 7.2.2008, the petitioner is continuing in the office as on date. 19. 19. In the light of the various circumstances as pleaded and also the outcome of the report submitted by the Block Development Officer and the Assistant Director of Panchayat, it is the duty of the respondents to proceed further on submission of explanation by the petitioner. Now, the petitioner is having the documents which he had sought from the respondents based on which he can very well submit his explanation to the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents can proceed with in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A fair submission has been made by the learned counsel on either side that the order of this Court has been implemented by keeping the impugned proceedings in abeyance. This being the position, the petitioner can very well submit his explanation to the respondents pursuant to which the respondents are at liberty to proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 20. Therefore, at this stage, taking into account the above position and the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court disposes of the writ petition with the following directions: a) The petitioner shall submit his explanation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. b) Thereafter, the respondents shall proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act and complete the same within a period of four weeks, after, affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the parties concerned. c) Till such time, the position, as on today shall be maintained and the interim order passed by this Court on 7.2.2008 shall also be maintained. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.