Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows: The petitioner was elected, as the President of Vadakkarai Village Panchayat, during the panchayat elections, held in the year, 2006. As the president of the said Panchayat, the petitioner had been discharging his functions, to the best of his abilities, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The petitioner was being guided in the administration of the Panchayat and in the maintenance of the accounts, by G.Shankar, the panchayat Clerk. 3. The panchayat Clerk, G.Shankar, is the brother-in-law of one Venkatesan, who was a contestant against the petitioner, in the election for the post of President of the Panchayat. As such, the panchayat Clerk, G.Shankar, had manipulated the panchayat records, in order to get the petitioner into trouble. In such circumstances, certain charges had been framed against the petitioner. In spite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 24.6.2009, removing the petitioner from the post of the President of the Vadakkarai Village Panchayat. Thereafter, the said order had been published, in G.O.(D) No.655, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (P.R.IV) Department, dated 27.11.2009. Since, the revision filed by the petitioner before the first respondent, under Section 205(12) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, had been rejected by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Even though various grounds have been raised challenging the impugned proceedings of the respondents, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in spite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent had taken action against the petitioner by taking away the cheque signing power of the petitioner, by an order, dated 24.6.2009. Based on the same allegations the petitioner had been removed from the post of President, by an order passed by the second respondent, under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, on 8.7.2009. 5. Based on the same allegations the petitioner had been removed from the post of President, by an order passed by the second respondent, under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, on 8.7.2009. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that, in spite of the majority of the ward members voting in favour of the petitioner, the second respondent had passed an order removing the petitioner from the post of President, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such an order is arbitrary and illegal, as held by a Division Bench of this Court, in Pugazhendran V. B.G.Balu ( 2005(1) CTC 545 ). In such circumstances, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 24.6.2009, notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 8.7.2009, is liable to be set aside. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner is guilty of certain acts, which would amount to misappropriation of the panchayat funds. Since, serious allegations had been levelled against the petitioner, the cheque signing power of the petitioner had been withdrawn. Later, he was removed from the post of the president of Vadakkarai Village Panchayat, by an order of the second respondent, dated 24.6.2009, and it had been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 8.7.2009. 7. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, made in Pugazhendran V. B.G.Balu ( 2005(1) CTC 545 ), this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 24.6.2009, and the consequential notification, dated 8.7.2009, are quashed. From the records available it is clear that even though the majority of the ward members were in favour of the petitioner the second respondent had issued the impugned proceedings removing the petitioner from the post of the president of Vadakkarai Village Panchayat, without giving him an opportunity of hearing. In fact, the second respondent ought to have given an opportunity of hearing, as held by the Division Bench of this Court, made in the said decision. In fact, the second respondent ought to have given an opportunity of hearing, as held by the Division Bench of this Court, made in the said decision. In such circumstances, the second respondent is permitted to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, based on the charges already framed against him and it is for the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in view of the serious charges levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner shall not be permitted to take charge, as the President of the Vadakkarai Village Panchayat, till the proceedings are completed and final orders are passed by the second respondent.