Judgment Heard both sides. .2. The petitioner is a Vice President of Kottivakkam Village Panchayat in Tambaram Taluk in Kancheepuram District. The petitioner has come forward to challenge an order passed by the 1st respondent State in G.O.(D) No.483, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 8. 2009 confirming the order of removal passed by the 2nd respondent-District Collector dated 23.02.2009. 3. In the Writ Petition, notice was directed to be served on the respondents. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted interim stay of removal, by an order dated 28. 2009. The said order is continuing till date. 4. The 2nd respondent District Collector by an order dated 22. 2009 removed the petitioner for omissions and commissions in respect of financial irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner and exercised power under section 206(2) r/w 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. 5. Initially there was a complaint against the petitioner from the people of New Colony, Kottivakkam Panchayat. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the 2nd respondent, who was the Inspector of Village Panchyat. A proceedings dated 1. 2009 was given to the petitioner containing charges. The petitioner being the Vice President of the Panchayat gave a reply dated 21. 2009. Since the reply was not satisfactory, the Tahsildar of Tambaram Taluk was directed to convene a meeting of the Panchayat. Accordingly, a meeting of the Panchayat was convened on 12. 2009. In the meeting, it is now stated that 15 members were present and unanimously they did not agree for the action initiated against the petitioner. The said decision of the Panchayat was communicated by the Tahsildar with a covering letter dated 12. 2009. The 2nd respondent, upon receipt of the same, went to the charges as well as the explanation given by the petitioner, took note of the Report sent by the Tahsildar, Tambaram, communicating the views of the Panchayat and passed the final order removing the petitioner under section 206. The consequential notice was also made in the Government Gazette dated 22. 2009. 6. The petitioner came forward to challenge the said order in W.P.No.3839 of 2009. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted interim stay against his removal. Thereafter, on 4. 2009, this Court directed the petitioner to avail the remedy by way of Revision before the State Government in terms of Section 206(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. .7. 2009. 6. The petitioner came forward to challenge the said order in W.P.No.3839 of 2009. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted interim stay against his removal. Thereafter, on 4. 2009, this Court directed the petitioner to avail the remedy by way of Revision before the State Government in terms of Section 206(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. .7. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a Revision to the 1st respondent on 4. 2009. In paragraph 15.D, the petitioner raised the following grounds: ."(D) The petitioner submits that as per Sec.206 of the Act, the 1st respondent, if not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner is bound to have a meeting conveyed and the views of the Panchayat as recorded in the minutes of the meeting have to be considered. In the instant case, the members of the Panchayat have expressed their views objecting to the removal of the petitioner. Except to refer to the said views, there is no consideration of the views expressed by the members of the Panchayat and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside as being opposed to Sec.206(2) read with Sec.205(11) of the Act. 8. The 1st respondent dismissed the Revision by the impugned order in G.O.(D) No.483, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 8. 2009. In respect of the contention raised by the petitioner in not considering the views of the Panchayat members as raised in 15.D, in the impugned order, it was stated as follows: "It has been clearly laid down under sub section (11) of Section 205 read with 206(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994 that the Inspector may, after considering the views of the Village Panchayat in this regard, in his discretion either remove the Vice-President from Office by notification or drop further action. The Inspector/Collector has discretionary powers to overlook the views of the Panchayat. In this case, the Collector has invoked section 206(2) r/w Section 205 (11) of the said Act in removing the Vice President by invoking his discretionary powers which is well within the law, as the state cannot be a mute spectator when the provision of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, rules and instructions of the Government are flouted, resulting in pecuniary loss to the Panchayat/Government. The Collector therefore acted well within his powers in holding the Vice-President jointly responsible for the irregularities. The Collector therefore acted well within his powers in holding the Vice-President jointly responsible for the irregularities. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected." 9. In this Writ Petition, notice was ordered on 28. 2009. Interim stay was also granted. On behalf of the respondents State, Mr.S.Ramasamy, learned Additional Advocate General appears. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the decision of the Full Bench in the District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat, Villupuram District and another vs. Devi Parasuraman and another reported in 2009 (4) CTC 609 , wherein this Court dealt with scope of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act in respect of a removal of a President of a Village Panchayat. In paragraph 17, the Full Bench observed 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 the views of the Village Panchayat, but before taking nay 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. 11. Therefore, in the light of the Full Bench judgment, more particularly direction found in paragraph 17 (iii), it has to be seen whether the District Collector had applied the direction given by the Full Bench in the case of the petitioner. It is seen that the entire Panchayat was against his removal. Though such view was found reflected in the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, there is no notice given to the petitioner before accepting or rejecting the views of the Panchayat members, as directed by the Full Bench. Though this contention was raised by the petitioner in his Revision, the 1st respondent State did not consider the same. 12. Though such view was found reflected in the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, there is no notice given to the petitioner before accepting or rejecting the views of the Panchayat members, as directed by the Full Bench. Though this contention was raised by the petitioner in his Revision, the 1st respondent State did not consider the same. 12. Therefore, the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 8. 2009 made in G.O. (D) No.483 and the order of the 2nd respondent dated 23.02.2009 made in Na.Ka.1853/2008/A4/c/,(C) are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent to pass orders in accordance with law and in the light of the Full Bench Judgment referred to above. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition stand closed.