The District Collector has no power under Section 203 of the Panchayat Act to take away the cheque signing power of the President and the Vice President.

INTRODUCTORY:

Whether the emergency powers conferred on the Collector under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], would enable him to take away the cheque signing power of the President and Vice President of the Village Panchayat under Sub-Section (3) of Section 188 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 is the core issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition.

THE FACTS:

2. The petitioner was elected as the President of Peragambi Panchayat during the year 2011. She took office on 25 October, 2011. According to the petitioner, she has been conducting the affairs of the Panchayat in a highly transparent manner. The Panchayat Assistant was not rendering any help in the matter of maintenance of accounts. The petitioner was compelled to look after the functions of the Panchayat President as well as the administrative work.

3. While the matters stood thus, the District Collector, in her capacity as the Inspector of Panchayat, issued an order on 23 March, 2012, whereby and whereunder, the cheque signing power of the petitioner was taken away. Before passing such a drastic order, no notice was issued to her. Thereafter, the first respondent initiated proceedings under Section 205 of the Act. The order dated 23 March, 2012 under Section 203 of the Act is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition. The proceedings initiated under Section 205 of the Act was challenged in W.P.(MD)No.16755 of 2012.

4. The Assistant Director of Panchayat filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was stated that the petitioner failed to maintain proper accounts of the Panchayat funds. The petitioner incurred expenditure from village panchayat general fund without maintaining vouchers. Since the interest of the panchayat was not taken care of by the petitioner, the first respondent was compelled to pass orders under Section 203 of the Act. The cheque signing power was given to the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats) vide proceedings dated 23 March, 2012. The second respondent further contended that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, the petitioner failed to produce the accounts for verification. It was only under such circumstances, notice was issued for initiating action under Section 205 of the Act. In short, the second respondent maintained that the misappropriation of panchayat funds made the District Collector to take away the cheque signing powers from the petitioner.

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS:

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before passing the impugned order, no notice was issued to the petitioner to submit her response. According to the learned counsel, the order passed by the first respondent would result in civil consequences and as such, the petitioner should have been given a reasonable opportunity. The learned counsel further submitted that the failure to respond to the order passed under Section 203 of the Act made the District Collector to initiate proceedings for removal of the petitioner from office under Section 205 of the Act. The learned counsel, therefore, wanted the proceedings to be quashed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner indulged in acts of misappropriation. The District Collector exercised her powers under Section 203 of the Act and curtailed the cheque signing powers given to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, there is no prescription under Section 203 of the Act to issue prior notice and as such, the petitioner was not correct in her contention that the principles of natural justice was violated while passing the impugned order.

DISCUSSION:

7. The cheque signing power given to the petitioner under Sub-Section (3) of Section 188 of the Panchayats Act was taken away by the District Collector by invoking the emergency powers under Section 203 of the Act.

8. The moot question, therefore, is as to whet