Judgment :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the order dated 28.09.2007 issued by the first respondent Village Panchayat and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to the first respondent Panchayat to reinstate him in service with all attendant benefits. 3. By the impugned order, the petitioner was informed that his case was considered in the light of the earlier order passed by this Court and it was found that he cannot be retained in service, as he failed to discharge the duties attached to the post and also misappropriated the tax collection and he continues to be found working against the interest of the Panchayat and therefore, in terms of Section 106 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, he was permanently removed from service, with effect from 28.09.2007. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 13.03.2008, this Court ordered notice of motion. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted on 25.11.2010. Pending the writ petition, though the petitioner sought for an order of interim stay and interim direction, interim stay was declined and the miscellaneous petitions were dismissed by an order dated 25.11.2010. 5. On notice from this Court, the second respondent Block Development Officer has filed a counter affidavit dated 13.06.2012. 6. It is seen from the records that the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3298 of 2007 challenging the order dated 03.01.2007 wherein and by which, he was placed under suspension. That writ petition came to be disposed of on 25.07.2007 itself. Further, in the said writ petition, the Village Panchayat was not given notice and it was recorded as if the learned Special Government Pleader has taken notice. The petitioner was directed to give a representation to the first respondent for revoking the order of suspension and on such representation being received, it was directed to be disposed of by the Panchayat. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Panchayat directed the petitioner to give his explanation. It was further stated that despite several explanations were called for, including notice dated 14.02.2007, 28.02.2007 and 22.03.2007, he had not appeared for any enquiry and no explanation is forthcoming. The petitioner did not file any appeal to the Inspector of Panchayats though there is a provision of appeal under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. It was further stated that despite several explanations were called for, including notice dated 14.02.2007, 28.02.2007 and 22.03.2007, he had not appeared for any enquiry and no explanation is forthcoming. The petitioner did not file any appeal to the Inspector of Panchayats though there is a provision of appeal under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. On the other hand, the petitioner contended that in respect of his explanation, no enquiry was held and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it was stated that the Panchayat received complaint from the public that the petitioner indulged in misappropriation of the amount at the time of collection of the property tax. Further, the petitioner issued bills for payment of tax not for the actual amount received, but for a lesser amount and the bills were also anti-dated. When this was questioned by the public, the petitioner indulged in several activities, which were detrimental to the interest of the Panchayat. He has also instigate the public to gather at the office of the Panchayat. Hence, taking into account all the relevant facts, the impugned order came to be passed. 8. Considering the fact that the petitioner did not belong to any constitutional service and not governed by any rules and also considering the fact that opportunities were given to him and the petitioner was not availed the same, this Court do not find any case made out by the petitioner to interfere with the order of the first respondent. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.