Quasi-judicial removal must follow the show cause notice and give reasons; fresh allegations and non-speaking orders are invalid.

A quasi-judicial removal under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 must stay within the scope of the show cause notice, and the elected office bearer must be given a fair opportunity to meet the specific allegations. The order was invalid insofar as it relied on fresh matters not disclosed in the notice. It was also unsustainable because the authority did not give reasons for rejecting the explanation or pass a speaking order, which breached natural justice and rendered the action arbitrary under Article 14. The removal was therefore set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order removing the petitioner under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 was vitiated for travelling beyond the show cause notice by relying on fresh allegations. (ii) Whether the order was unsustainable for want of reasons and for non-compliance with the requirements of natural justice in a quasi-judicial proceeding.

Issue (i): Whether the order removing the petitioner under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 was vitiated for travelling beyond the show cause notice by relying on fresh allegations.

Analysis: The power under Section 205 is quasi-judicial and must be exercised within the scope of the notice issued to the elected office bearer. The notice must put the person on clear notice of the specific allegations so that an effective explanation can be furnished. The impugned order relied not only on the charges in the notice but also on additional matters relating to the manner in which later meetings were conducted, which were never put to the petitioner for explanation.

Conclusion: The order was invalid to the extent it relied on matters beyond the show cause notice, and this was against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the order was unsustainable for want of reasons and for non-compliance with the requirements of natural justice in a quasi-judicial proceeding.

Analysis: Removal of an elected Panchayat President has serious civil consequences and requires a strict and fair procedure. A quasi-judicial authority must consider the explanation, record reasons for accepting or rejecting it, and pass a speaking order. The impugned order merely set out the charges and the replies in tabular form and then reached a conclusion without explaining why the explanations were rejected. Such an order does not satisfy the requirement of reasoned decision-making and is arbitrary within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The order was unsustainable for want of reasons and violation of natural justice, against the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The removal order could not stand and the disciplinary proceeding was restored to the authority for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: In a quasi-judicial proceeding under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, an elected office bearer cannot be removed on grounds not disclosed in the show cause notice, and the final order must be a reasoned speaking order reflecting consideration of the explanation.

---