Judgment :- 1. By consent, the main Writ Appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.08.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.11475 of 2009. 3. The appellant filed W.P.(MD).No.11475 of 2009 challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 02.11.2009 dispensing with the cheque signing power of the appellant as the Vice President of Manoor Village Panchayat and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to restore his cheque signing power. 4. The case of the appellant is that he is the Vice-President of Manoor Village Panchayat. The first respondent, by order dated 18.06.2009, passed an order divesting the power of cheque signing, which he is entitled to sign along with President of the Village Panchayat under Section 188 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. The said order was challenged by the appellant in W.P.(MD).No.5547 of 2009. This Court, by order dated 16.09.2009, allowed the said Writ Petition by following a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pugazhendran, President, Brammapuram Village Panchayat, Katpadi Panchayat Union, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District vs. B.G.Balu and others reported in 2005 (1) CTC 545 and held that the power vested with the Vice - President of the Village Panchayat to act as a co-signatory to the cheques to be signed for and on behalf of the Panchayat cannot be taken away without affording an opportunity or without issuing a notice. As no notice having been issued to the appellant before taking away the power of cheque signing, the impugned order, which was the subject matter of challenge in W.P. (MD).No.5547 of 2009, cannot be sustained, and accordingly, the said order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the first respondent with a direction to issue fresh notice to the appellant clearly setting out the allegations levelled against the appellant and the reasons as to why the first respondent proposed to invoke power under Section 206 of the Act, and thereafter, the appellant was directed to submit his objections and after considering the objections, the first respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 5. 5. After the disposal of the said Writ Petition, the appellant was issued with a notice on 07.10.2009 calling upon him to appear for an enquiry without mentioning any allegation, which the appellant has to face. The appellant filed W.P.(MD).No.10370 of 2009 for issuing a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the second respondent from conducting enquiry relating to the proceedings dated 07.10.2009 till the disposal of the proceedings dated 21.07.2009. However, on 14.10.2009, the said Writ Petition was withdrawn and liberty was granted to the appellant to file a fresh Writ Petition, if he is aggrieved by any order to be passed. The appellant, without knowing the allegations levelled against him, submitted a representation on 15.10.2009. The first respondent passed an order on 02.11.2009 again and divested the cheque signing power of the appellant. The said order was challenged by the appellant in W.P.(MD).No.11475 of 2009. By order dated 24.08.2010, the said Writ Petition having been dismissed, the appellant preferred the present Writ Appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent. The fourth respondent has not chosen to appear, in spite of service of notice on 30.09.2010. 7. On perusal of the notice issued to the appellant, it is evident that no allegation, which the appellant has to face, has been mentioned. It is an elementary principle of law that a show cause notice issued to a person before taking any action, must contain the allegations levelled against him in a specific manner so that he will be in a position to controvert or deny the allegation. Without making any imputation merely calling a person to appear for an enquriy is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge Court dated 16.09.2009, which was accepted by the first respondent, clearly states that the first respondent shall issue a fresh notice to the appellant clearly setting out the allegations levelled against him and the reason as to why the first respondent proposed to invoke power under Section 206 of the Act, and thereafter, the appellant shall be entitled to submit his objections and after considering the objections, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. The first respondent cannot ignore the said direction, which was issued in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The notice dated 07.10.2009 was issued to the appellant subsequent to the order dated 16.09.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. Translated version of the said notice dated 07.10.2009 reads as follows:- Na.Ka.No.4030/2009/A4 Assistant Director (Panchayats), Dindigul, dated 07.10.2009. Urgent Memo Subject: Enquiry - Thoppampatti Panchayat Union - Manoor Panchayat - notice issued to appear for enquiry before the District Collector, as ordered by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, in respect of cancellation of cheque signing power of the Vice - President reg; Ref:-(1)Madurai Bench of Madras High Court W.P.(MD).No.5547/2009/19P(MD).No.2 of 2009. (2). Proceedings of the District Collector, Dindigul dated 27.09.2009. In the order passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, in Writ Petition, under reference first cited, against the withdrawal of the cheque signing power of the Vice - President, Manoor Panchayat, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has issued a direction to give an opportunity to the Vice -President. Accordingly, on 12.10.2009 at 04.00 PM, it is decided to conduct an enquiry by the District Collector. Therefore, it is informed that steps shall be taken for the participation of the President, Manoor Panchayat, Vice President, Manoor Village Panchayat and Ward Councilors in the said meeting and inform the outcome of the meeting. Signed Assistant Director (Panchayats) Dindigul. 8. The idea behind the issuance of notice in any proceeding is to put on notice as to what are imputations against the person concerned. The first respondent, who is discharging a statutory power vested in him under Section 203 of the Act, is bound to act in a reasonable manner expected of from a statutory power, especially while dealing with a right of an elected representative of a local body. Issuing a notice need not be treated as a mere ritual or an empty formality. Issuing a notice need not be treated as a mere ritual or an empty formality. By the impugned order, the first respondent has taken away a statutory power conferred under Section 188(3) of the Act, which reads as follows;- "Subject to such general control as the village panchayat may exercise from time to time, all cheques for payment from Village Panchayat Fund shall be signed jointly by the President and Vice-President and in the absence of the President or Vice-president, as the case may be, by the Vice-president or the President and another member authorized by the Village Panchayat at a meeting in this behalf." 9. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pugazhendran, President, Brammapuram Village Panchayat, Katpadi Panchayat Union, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District vs. B.G.Balu and others reported in 2005 (1) LW 506 : 2005 (1) CTC 545 considered the importance of issuing notice and held that before taking any action against the Vice - President of Village Panchayat either under Section 203 or under Section 206 of the Act, person concerned should be given a notice, as any adverse order passed either under Section 203 or under Section 206 of the Act will have a civil consequence divesting the statutory powers. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Asitkumar Kar v. State of West Bengal & Ors reported in 2009 (1) Supreme 647 and in the case of Gurmej Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in 2009 (4) Supreme 808 considered similar issues and held that no adverse orders shall be passed against a person without giving an opportunity. 11. We are satisfied that in the said notice dated 07.10.2009, no allegation is levelled against the appellant, and therefore, the consequential order passed by the first respondent dated 02.11.2009 cannot be sustained, as the said order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 12. 11. We are satisfied that in the said notice dated 07.10.2009, no allegation is levelled against the appellant, and therefore, the consequential order passed by the first respondent dated 02.11.2009 cannot be sustained, as the said order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 12. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.08.2010 made in W.P. (MD).No.11475 of 2009 is set aside and the impugned order passed by the first respondent on 02.11.2009 is quashed and W.P.(MD).No.11475 of 2009 is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent, who shall proceed afresh strictly in accordance with the earlier order dated 16.09.2009 made in W.P.(MD).No.5547 of 2009 and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. The Writ Appeal is allowed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.