Judgment 1. Challenging the order passed under Section 205(11) of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") removing the petitioner from the post of President, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is an elected President of Pillur Village Panchayat in Perambalur District. The Inspector of Panchayats (District Collector), Perambalur District by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5271/06/A3, dated 20.11.2007 framed as many as 7 charges against him on certain allegations of irregularities said to have been committed by him while discharging his functions as President. The petitioner submitted her explanation wherein she had denied all such allegations made against her. There were several other communications in this regard, which are not very relevant for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition. Finally, the first respondent directed the Tahsildar to hold a meeting to get the views of the Village Panchayat on the above allegations. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Vellore, after recording the views of the Village Panchayat by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 1/2008/B1 dated 19.03.2008 submitted a report along with the minutes of the Village Panchayat. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the said meeting. Thereafter, the District Collector issued the impugned order removing the petitioner from the office. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations contained in the charge memorandum are not at all sufficient to initiate the proceedings under Section 205 of the Act. He would point out that the main charge is the 1st charge, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner failed to appoint a Village Panchayat Assistant in time. He would further submit that the power of appointing Village Panchayat Assistant is vested with Appointment Committee and not with the president. Therefore, the said charge is baseless. He would further submit that in the event the first charge fails, all the other charges, being consequential, should also fail. He would further submit that under Section 205 (11) of the Act, unless the act of the President amounts to willful omission or refusal or disobedience to carryout the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders, etc., there can not be any charge under Section 205 of the Act. In this case, according to the petitioner, absolutely, there is no material to show that he willfully omitted to appoint Village Assistant and in similar fashion omitted to discharge the other functions. 4. In this case, according to the petitioner, absolutely, there is no material to show that he willfully omitted to appoint Village Assistant and in similar fashion omitted to discharge the other functions. 4. He would lastly submit that in any event, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, because there was failure on the part of the first respondent to afford an opportunity as required under Section 205 (11) of the Act after getting views from the Village Panchayat. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 would refute all the above contentions. According to her, the allegations leveled against the petitioner are very serious in nature and the allegations as enumerated in the Charge Memorandum would be suffice to hold that the petitioner is liable to be removed from the post under Section 205 of the Act. She would further submit that all the materials including the explanation submitted by the petitioner were duly considered by the first respondent before arriving at the conclusion to remove him from the post. She would lastly submit that there is no specific direction contained in Section 205 of the Act to afford yet another opportunity to the petitioner. She would, therefore, pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. In my considered opinion, the writ petitioner is bound to succeed on the main ground that the impugned order is patently defective inasmuch as there has been no discussion or consideration of the views of the Village Panchayat, as required under Section 205(11) of the Act. Section 205(11) of the Act reads as under:- "205. Removal of President (1) The Inspector - (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." 7. A plain reading of the above provision would make one to understand without any doubt that it is the primary duty of the Inspector of Panchayat to consider the views of the Village Panchayat. It is only on such consideration, the Inspector of Panchayat may use his discretion either to remove the President from the office or to drop further action. Here, it should be remember that the discretion vested with him cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. It is only on such consideration, the Inspector of Panchayat may use his discretion either to remove the President from the office or to drop further action. Here, it should be remember that the discretion vested with him cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. The Inspector of Panchayat is, therefore, required to apply his mind into the facts, consider the views of the Village Panchayat and to pass an order in a judicious manner, which should naturally contain the reasons for such decision. Of course, he is not bound by the views of the Village Panchayat. But, the order passed by the Inspector of Panchayat should reflect the application of his mind into the facts and consideration of the views of the Village Panchayat. If he fails to do so, undoubtedly, the order would be devoid of merits and therefore, the same would be liable to be set aside. 8. Removing a democratically elected President from the office, will have serious consequences and therefore, the same cannot be lightly viewed and dealt with. Removing an elected President without following the mandatory procedures and without having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case would be detrimental to the very democratic process by which the electorate have chosen him. That is the reason why, probably the law-makers have made a specific provision under Section 205(11) of the Act, that the Inspector of Panchayat should consider the views of the Village Panchayat. Therefore, I am of the considered view, that the said provision should be scrupulously followed by the Inspector of Panchayat, while passing any order removing the President from the office. 9. In the case on hand, a perusal of the impugned order would go to show that absolutely neither there is any discussion nor consideration of the views of the Village Panchayat. The Inspector of Panchayat has only dealt with the allegations relating to the charges, explanation submitted by the petitioner and has passed the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order does not satisfy the requirements of Section 205(11) of the Act. 10. There is yet another reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Inspector of Panchayat has only dealt with the allegations relating to the charges, explanation submitted by the petitioner and has passed the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order does not satisfy the requirements of Section 205(11) of the Act. 10. There is yet another reason to interfere with the impugned order. Though there is no specific provision in Section 205 of the Act to the effect that a copy of the report of the Tahsildar should be furnished to the President and his further explanation should be called for, in my considered opinion, in compliance with the principles of natural justice, a copy of the report of the Tahsildar should be furnished and further opportunity should be given to the President to make his representation regarding the same. In a case where the President is a party to the meeting, in which the views of the Panchayat were recorded by the Tahsildar, it may not be necessary that a copy of such report should be furnished to him, as he had full knowledge of the views of the Panchayat. In such case, even without furnishing a copy of the report of the Tahsildar, he can be called upon to make his further representation. In a case where the President did not participate in the meeting of the Village Panchayat, in which the views were recorded by the Tahsildar then, in my considered opinion, it is absolutely necessary for the Inspector of Panchayat to furnish a copy of the report of the Tahsildar and then to afford an opportunity to the President to make his representations. In the case on hand, since the petitioner participated in the meeting, the question of furnishing of copy of such report does not arise. But, the fact remains that there was no opportunity given to him to make his representation regarding the views of the Village Panchayat. This in my considered opinion, violates the principles of natural justice. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh orders in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos. 1 to 3 of 2008 stand closed.