K PAKKIYALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE, the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed.

(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner, in W.P.No.13761 of 2011, had been elected, as the Vice- President of Saravanapakkam village panchayat and the petitioner, in W.P.No.13762 of 2011, had been elected, as the President of the said Panchayat, during the month of October, 2006. While so, by the proceedings, dated 21.4.2008, the third respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner, in W.P.No.13762 of 2011, stating that, when the accounts of the Saravanapakkam village panchayat had been verified, during the inspection, it had been noticed that the petitioner had incurred certain expenditures, without making the necessary entries in the cash books, and without maintaining supplementary vouchers.

(3.) IT had been further stated that the second respondent had issued a notice, dated 5.5.2008, under Section 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, seeking an explanation from the petitioner, in W.P.No.13761 of 2011, in respect of the three charges levelled against him. The charges framed against the petitioner in W.P.No.13761 of 2011 are as follows: