(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2504/20222/A6 U.E(U/T)(V) dated 27.06.2026 issued by the 1st respondent herein and consequently, published in the Government Gazette No.302, dated 02.07.2017 and quash the same.)

Common Order

1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners, who are the President and Vice- President of Vaipur Village Panchayat, Kunrathur Panchayat Union, have challenged the separate orders dated 27.06.2026 passed by the first respondent, removing them from their respective posts.

2. The allegations against both petitioners are common, while certain additional allegations were made against the President. Separate show-cause notices were issued to them under Section 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The petitioners submitted their replies. As the replies were not found satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted under Section 205 of the Act. After conducting the enquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the impugned orders came to be passed.

3. Heard both sides.

4. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that the first respondent has stated that, after considering the charges, the explanations submitted by the petitioners, the views and additional explanations of the Village Panchayat Council Members, the submissions made during the personal hearing and the other relevant documents, it was found that the President and Vice-President had violated the statutory rules and Government guidelines.

5. However, the first respondent has not given any reasons for accepting the views of the Village Panchayat Council Members and rejecting the explanations submitted by the petitioners. Since the removal of the petitioners from their respective posts has civil consequences, the orders ought to contain reasons. In the absence of reasons, the impugned orders are non-speaking orders and are in violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that, insofar as W.P.No.29202 of 2026 is concerned, the petitioner, who is the Vice-President, had admitted his guilt. Therefore, according to him, there was no necessity for the first respondent to give reasons for removing him from the post of Vice- President.

7. The alleged admission of guilt by the Vice-President reads as follows:

                “Respected Madam, Greetings. I am currently serving as the Vice- President of the aforementioned Panchayat. Frequent issues have been occurring in my Panchayat continuously. The reason for this is that none of the works executed in the Panchayat were ever informed to the ward members and subsequently, multiple disturbances were created regarding the passing of resolutions by the members. Overlooking this, they operated arbitrarily without informing anyone, withdrawing funds and incurring expenditures. If our superior officials had inspected the income-expenditure and operations of this Panchayat – specifically, an inspection by the Deputy Block Development Officer once every 3 months, by the Block Development Officer once every 6 months, and by the District Administration once a year – such lapses would not have occurred in this Panchayat. Madam, despite the lack of support from the ward members, as the Vice-President, I signed the resolutions brought forward to ensure that the basic amenities and essential works for the general public were not affected, thereby keeping the Panchayat functional. Therefore, I most humbly request you to legally investigate this matter and take appropriate action”.

8. A reading of the above statement shows that the Vice-President had stated that, due to the lack of cooperation from the ward members, he signed the resolutions to ensure that basic amenities and essential works for the public were not affected and the Panchayat continued to function. This aspect has not been considered by the first respondent while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the orders removing the petitioners from their respective posts, without assigning reasons for rejecting their explanations, are not only non-speaking orders but also violate the principles of natural justice.

9. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.06.2026 passed by the first respondent are set aside. The first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders, giving reasons for accepting or rejecting the explanations submitted by the petitioners. The exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.