Judgment Heard both sides. .2. The petitioner is the President of Kottupullampalayam Panchayat in Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode. He has come forward to challenge the order of the 1st respondent, the District Collector, Erode dated 8. 2009 in removing the petitioner from the post of Village Panchayat President passed under Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. 3. The petitioner was given a Notification dated 12. 2009 listing out certain commissions and omissions indulged by the petitioner. After getting a reply from the petitioner, the matter was considered by the 1st respondent. Since his reply was not satisfactory, the Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode (the 4th respondent herein) was asked to convene a meeting of the village panchayat to consider the allegations levelled against the petitioner and his reply. Accordingly, the 4th respondent convened a meeting of the Village Panchayat by a notice dated 25. 2009. He presided over the meeting which was held on 6. 2009. 4. In that meeting, the opinion of the members of the village Panchayat was ascertained. Out of 12 members who had participated in that meeting, 5 members including the Vice President agreed that the charges were proved. Seven members of the Panchayat stated that the allegations were not valid. The proceedings of the meeting was communicated by the 4th respondent to the 1st respondent with a covering letter dated 6. 2009. It is upon the receipt of those records, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 8. 2009. 5. In the 3rd paragraph of the impugned order, the 1st respondent has held that he was in receipt of the report submitted by the District Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam containing the proceedings of the panchayat and he had also taken into account the details of the members of the panchayat. However, the 1st respondent held that the charges against the petitioner were proved and therefore in exercise of his power under Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the 1st respondent directed the removal of the petitioner from the office of the Village Panchayat with effect from 29. 2009. He also entrusted the work of President to be performed by the Vice President of the Panchayat. That order is under challenge in this writ petition. .6. The Act itself provides for a revision to the State Government under Section 205(12) of the Act. 2009. He also entrusted the work of President to be performed by the Vice President of the Panchayat. That order is under challenge in this writ petition. .6. The Act itself provides for a revision to the State Government under Section 205(12) of the Act. The petitioner did not avail the said remedy provided under the Act and invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Mr.R.Yashod Varadan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since there is a serious breach of statutory provision in this case, there is no necessity to avail the alternative remedy provided under the Act. He also relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court headed by S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. (as he then was) relating to the District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat and the District Development Officer Vs. Devi Parasuraman and another reported in 2009(4) CTC 609 . 8. In that judgment, the Full Bench after analysing the provision of Section 205 and analogous provisions under other Enactments gave its findings in paragraph No.17 which is as follows: "17. In the light of the discussions made above, we summarise our views as follows: i. An act of the Inspector under Section 205 is quasi-judicial in nature; ii. If the Inspector is satisfied with the explanation submitted by the President Under Section 205, he is required to record his satisfaction for dropping the proceeding; and iii. If the Inspector differs with the views expressed by the Village Panchayat and decides to remove the President or to drop the proceeding against the President, he is not only required to record the reasons for differing with the views of the Village Panchayat, but before taking any 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 notification only on consideration of cause, if any, shown by the President." 9. Therefore, in the light of the Full Bench decision, more particularly found in para 17.3, the learned Senior Counsel contended that in the present case, the panchayat meeting which was held on 6. 2009, majority was in favour of the petitioner. Though the same was noted in the impugned order, but as directed by the Full Bench of this Court, no notice was given before taking note of the views of the Panchayat members. 2009, majority was in favour of the petitioner. Though the same was noted in the impugned order, but as directed by the Full Bench of this Court, no notice was given before taking note of the views of the Panchayat members. Therefore, in the light of the dicta laid down by the Full Bench, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this short ground. He also stated that a defective order cannot be cured in an effective appeal and hence, they have come forward to challenge the original order before this Court rather than moving the Government with a Revision under Section 205 (12) of the Act. 10. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the decision reported in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. L.K.Ratna and Others (1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 537 and referred toparagraph No.18 which reads as follows: "18. But perhaps another way of looking at the matter lies in examining the consequences of the initial order as soon as it is passed. There are cases where an order may cause serious injury as soon as it is made, an injury not capable of being entirely erased when the error is corrected on subsequent appeal. For instance, as in the present case, where a member of a highly respected and publicly trusted profession is found guilty of misconduct and suffers penalty, the damage to his professional reputation can be immediate and far-reaching. "Not all the Kings horses and all the Kings men" can ever salvage the situation completely, notwithstanding the widest scope provided to an appeal. To many a man, his professional reputation is his most valuable possession. It affects his standing and dignity among his fellow members in the profession and guarantees the esteem of his clientele. It is often the carefully garnered fruit of a long period of scrupulous, conscientious and diligent industry. It is the portrait of his professional honour. In a world said to be notorious for its blasé attitude towards the noble values of an earlier generation, a mans professional reputation is still his most sensitive pride. In such a case, after the blow suffered by the initial decision, it is difficult to contemplate complete restitution through an appellate decision. It is the portrait of his professional honour. In a world said to be notorious for its blasé attitude towards the noble values of an earlier generation, a mans professional reputation is still his most sensitive pride. In such a case, after the blow suffered by the initial decision, it is difficult to contemplate complete restitution through an appellate decision. Such a case is unlike an action for money or recovery of property, where the execution of the trial decree may be stayed pending appeal, or a successful appeal may result in refund of the money or restitution of the property, with appropriate compensation by way of interest or mesne profits for the period of deprivation. And, therefore, it seems to us, there is manifest need to ensure that there is no breach of fundamental procedure in the original proceeding, and to avoid treating an appeal as an overall substitute for the original proceeding. (Emphasis added)" 11. Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader taking notice for the respondents submitted that the District Collector has considered the explanation offered by the petitioner and dealt with each of the allegation levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, it is not a fit case where an interference is called for. 12. But in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court, since the defect pointed out by the Senior Counsel for the petitioner, namely, further notice before accepting or rejecting the views expressed by the village Panchayat has been Mandatorily required, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 13. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that this Court in M.Egavalli Mahalingam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and Others, has applied the dicta laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in a similar circumstances. 14. In view of the above, the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 8. 2009 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and in the light of the Full Bench Judgment referred to above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.