The withdrawal of cheque signing power under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act can be justified as an interim measure in cases of emergency or pending proceedings related to financial misdeeds.

1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondents comprised in the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.A2/1217/2011 dated 1.4.2001 and issued against the petitioner as the President of Anakkavur Panchayat, Anakkavur Panchayat Union, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District and quash the said order.

2. Petitioner in this case is an elected representative and the President of the Village Panchayat. In the course of performance of his duties, it was brought to the attention of the first respondent, the Inspector of Panchayats, that the petitioner is acting detrimental to the interest of the panchayat. Three charges were levelled against the petitioner by issuance of a show-cause notice on 19.3.2011. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.3.2011. The impugned order was passed on 1.4.2011 withdrawing the cheque signing power from the petitioner and handing it over to the Block Development Officer, the third respondent until further orders. This order has been passed by the first respondent in exercise of power under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, which reads as follows:-

"203. Emergency powers of Collector and Inspector:- Subject to such control as may be prescribed, the Inspector or the Collector may, in cases of emergency, direct or provide for the execution of any work, or the doing of any act which a Panchayat or Executive

Authority or Commissioner or Secretary is empowered to execute or do and the immediate execution or doing of which is in his opinion necessary for the safety of the public and may direct that the expense of executing such work or doing such act shall be paid by the person having the custody of the Village Panchayat Fund or the Panchayat Union (General) Fund or the District Panchayat (General) Fund in priority to any other charges against such Fund except charges for the service of authorized loans."

3. Petitioner challenges the impugned order stating the bona fide of the petitioner in withdrawing the money for utilisation was due to administrative exigency and in order to save money to the panchayat. He justifies his action on facts, which this Court is not inclined to go into as the issue has been considered by the first respondent on merits.

4. The further contention of the petitioner is that in exercise of power under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the first respondent ought not to have pass the order as the said power can be invoked by the first respondent only in cases of emergency or to direct the execution of any work which is necessary for the safety of public. This power should not have been used for withdrawing the cheque signing power from the elected President of the Village Panchayat.

5. Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents points out that such power exercised by the first respondent is justified and he relies upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of P.Suganthi - vs. - The District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats, Thoothukudi District reported in 2011(2) CTC 381 wherein the Division Bench held in para 11 as follows:-

"11. When the proceedings is initiated as against the President of village related to financial misdeeds, we are of the view that the transferring the cheque signing power from the Village President to Block Development Officer, the Second Respondent is definitely a case of emergency fitting within the provisions of Section 203 of the Act. If the Appellant is allowed to continue to sign the cheques, it would amount to endorse the alleged irregularities committed by the Appellant. Moreover, the transferring of cheque signing power is only an interim arrangement, till the completion of the proceedings initiated as against the Appellant under Section 205 of the Act."

6. In this case also, there is a charge against the petitioner that he has acted improperly while dealing with the funds of t