The admission of incapacity to manage Panchayat functions and the signing of cheques leading to misappropriation justified the petitioner's removal from office.

The petitioner, who was elected as a President of the Maramangalathupatty Panchayat, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent, the District Collector, Salem, dated 28.02.2015 and the consequential notification published in the Government Gazette, dated 09.03.2015, by which the petitioner was removed from the post of President of the said village Panchayat.

2. The petitioner was elected to the said office on 25.10.2011. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner would admit that she is not well-versed with the Ministerial function of the Panchayat and she was taking the advice of the then Panchayat Clerk, P.Subramanian till he was promoted as Junior Assistant and posted in the Panchayat Union office in August, 2012 and in the vacancy so caused, one C.Manickavasu was appointed and he joined duty on 24.08.2012, who happens to be the relative of the former Panchayat Clerk Mr. P.Subramanian, who is also said to have been advising the petitioner. It is stated that the newly appointed Panchayat Clerk in-turn took the advice from the from Clerk Mr. P.Subramanian. The petitioner would state that during July 2013, the Panchayat Clerk, Mr. C.Manickavasu, obtained a cheque dated 01.07.2013, for Rs.6,300/-, for payment of salary of Overhead Tank Operators of the Panchayat. It is stated that after about one month when the petitioner was going through the bank passbook, found that the same cheque was presented and a sum of Rs.96,300/-, was drawn from the Panchayat account and this was encashed by Mr. C.Manickavasu, Panchayat Clerk. The petitioner came to know that the cheque issued for Rs.6,300/- was used to encash this amount by prefixing the digit 9 before 6,300/-. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the third respondent requesting the third respondent to verify the bank account of the Panchayat and also to transfer the erring Panchayat Clerk.

3. The third respondent directed the Deputy Block Development Officer to take necessary action on the complaint who conducted an inspection and found that the amounts from the Panchayat Account had transferred to the personal account of the former Panchayat Clerk, P.Subramanian, and cheque for Rs.23,17,184/-, and a sum of Rs.15,72,227/-, has been paid to the said P.Subramanian, by means of a self cheque of the Panchayat. Earlier, the third respondent is said to have initiated surcharge proceedings against the former President of the same Panchayat and also taken action against erstwhile Panchayat Clerk P.Subramanian. While so, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 21.05.2014, alleging that a sum of Rs.19,96,293/-, has been transferred to the account of the then Panchayat Clerk P.Subramanian and one Yuvaraj, cashier of Veerapandi Panchayat Union during the period from 25.10.2011 to 19.09.2013. It was further stated that a sum of Rs.15,97,868/-, out of Rs.19,96,293/- has been transferred to the personal account of the then Panchayat Clerk P.Subramanian and a sum of Rs.3,98,425/- had been transferred to the account of Yuvaraj, cashier of the Panchayat Union. It is submitted that the show cause notice did not make any allegation that the petitioner had committed any misappropriation.

4. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 29.05.2014, narrating the factual position and the action taken against the Panchayat Clerks. The petitioner denied all the allegations made in the show cause notice and emphasised that the entire episode is a handiwork of Panchayat Clerks, P.Subramanian, and C.Manickavasu. The petitioner also requested an inspection be conducted to find out all the irregularities and illegalities. It was further submitted that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, Mr. C.Manickavasu was placed under suspension and subsequently transferred and charge memo has been issued to P.Subramanian and he has also been placed under suspension. It is submitted that without considering the expla