Judgment The petitioner was elected as the President of Kottaikuppam Village Panchayat. It appears that certain complaint has been levelled against the conduct of the petitioner to the second respondent, who is the Inspector of Panchayat, which relate to the construction of houses for tsunami victims. Based on the complaint, enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Director Panchayat on 1. 2009. It appears that thereafter the persons who gave the complaint to the second respondent have represented to the second respondent on 11. 2009 for withdrawal of the said complaint. However, the second respondent has issued a show cause notice on 21. 2009 to the petitioner for removal of the petitioner under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (for brevity, "the Act"). The petitioner submitted his explanation on 22. 2009. 2. At the instance of the second respondent, which was on 13. 2009, the Tahsildar, Ponneri was directed to obtain the opinion of the Panchayat for removal of the petitioner. It is seen that pursuant to the said direction, the Tahsildar has convened a meeting of the Village Panchayat on 24. 2009. It is stated by the petitioner that in the meeting convened by the Tahsildar, the Vice President and other Panchayat members have unanimously opposed the resolution for removal of the President and thereafter, on receiving the said report from the Tahsildar, the second respondent has passed an order on 15. 2009 differing from the views of the members of the Panchayat and removing the petitioner from the post of President by exercising the power conferred under Section 205(11) of the Act and the said removal was later published in the gazette notification dated 6. 2009. In the said order, the second respondent has informed the petitioner that against the order of removal dated 15. 2009, the petitioner can file an appeal to the Government under Section 205(12) of the Act. 3. It is seen that the petitioner has accordingly filed an appeal to the first respondent on 16. 2009 and as the same was not disposed, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.17175 of 2009, in which this Court by order dated 28. 2009 has directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. It is stated that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the first respondent has in fact conducted an enquiry on 10. 2009 has directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. It is stated that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the first respondent has in fact conducted an enquiry on 10. 2009, in which the petitioner was represented through her counsel, and after the enquiry there was no further order passed. However, the impugned order came to be passed on 211. 2009 as per which the first respondent, by referring to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in The District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat, Villupuram District and another v. Devi Parasuraman and others, 2009 (4) CTC 609 in respect of the procedure to be followed in cases where the Inspector of Panchayat differs from the view of the Panchayat and stating that the Inspector of Panchayat has to give his reasons and show cause notice to the President concerned and pass appropriate orders thereafter, returned the records to the second respondent. 4. The impugned letter of the first respondent dated 211. 2009 is challenged on the ground that when the first respondent has itself entertained the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 205(12) of the Act as per the contents of the order of the second respondent dated 15. 2009 and conducted an enquiry as per the direction of this Court in the appeal filed by the petitioner, it is the duty on the part of the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits and without passing orders on merits in the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 205(12) of the Act, by impugned communication the first respondent has sent the records to the second respondent for following the procedure as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in The District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat, Villupuram District and another v. Devi Parasuraman and others, supra. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in such event the first respondent should have set aside the order of the second respondent dated 15. 2009 and sent back the matter to the second respondent for passing fresh orders in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, The District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat, Villupuram District and another v. Devi Parasuraman and others, supra. 6. 2009 and sent back the matter to the second respondent for passing fresh orders in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, The District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat, Villupuram District and another v. Devi Parasuraman and others, supra. 6. Mr.T.Seenivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the impugned notice itself has been sent by the first respondent in order to implement the decision of the Full Bench referred supra and in fact, it is based on the decision of the Full Bench, the first respondent has sent a communication on 110. 2009 to all the District Collectors, including the District Collector, Tiruvallur as follows: "2. As per the above referred order of the Full Bench of Madras High Court, I am to state that as an Inspector of Panchayats, you should record reasons for dropping action against removal of President if you are satisfied with the explanation submitted by President. Regarding removal of President from the post against the wishes of the members in the meeting convened by the Tahsildar under Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, you should record reasons for differing the views / resolutions of Panchayat for taking decisions to remove the President. A show cause notice should also be given to the President intimating the reasons for differing with the view of the members of Village Panchayat and you should issue the notification only after consideration of the explanation submitted by President." 7. I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 205 of the Act which relates to the procedure to be followed in cases of removal of President, under sub-section (11) enables the Inspector of Panchayat to pass orders and thereafter, the Government has got power either to cancel the notification issued under sub-section (11) and may, pending a decision on such cancellation, postpone the date specified in such notification. Sections 205(11) and 205(12) of the Act are as follows: "Section: 205. Removal of President.- (1) to (10) *** (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. Sections 205(11) and 205(12) of the Act are as follows: "Section: 205. Removal of President.- (1) to (10) *** (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. (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." 8. When an issue was raised in a case where the Inspector of Panchayat, while taking a different view from that the members of the Panchayat, has passed order of removal of the President without assigning any reason and without giving any further opportunity to the President concerned, the Full Bench of this Court in The District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat, Villupuram District and another v. Devi Parasuraman and others, 2009 (4) CTC 609 has ultimately laid down the law in that regard 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. By applying the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court wherein it has been held that the conduct of the Inspector under Section 205 of the Act is quasi-judicial function and in cases where the Inspector differs from the views expressed by the Village Panchayat for the purpose of removal of the President, it is required on his part to provide further notice to the President concerned intimating the reasons for difference and thereafter pass appropriate orders to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no difficulty to conclude that the order of the second respondent dated 15. 2009 and publication of notification in the official gazette on 6. 2009 are totally opposed to the procedure laid down as stated above. 10. In addition to the above, even the second respondent in his order dated 15. 2009 has enabled the petitioner to file appeal to the Government under Section 205(12) of the Act and pursuant to that when the appeal has admittedly been filed to the first respondent, who has conducted enquiry as directed by this Court, it was certainly incumbent on the part of the first respondent to pass orders in the appeal and instead of passing orders in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders of the second respondent, the first respondent has by the impugned communication sent all the papers to the second respondent for a re-enquiry which is permissible only after the first respondent setting aside the order of the second respondent and remanding the matter for fresh decision in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench. In the absence of such action taken by the first respondent on the appeal filed by the petitioner, the impugned communication to the second respondent is unsustainable. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned communication of the first respondent dated 211. 2009 is set aside with a direction to the second respondent to whom the papers have been sent back by the first respondent to proceed afresh in accordance with law and by following the procedure as laid down by the Full Bench stated above. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are closed.