R MEENACHI Vs. INSPECTOR OF PANCHAYAT CUM DISTRICT COLLECTOR; PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT; BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner is the President of Salavedu Panchayat Board. He was issued with a show cause notice under Section 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in short), dated 17.06.2013, based on the inspection conducted, on 27.05.2013. There were eight charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted her explanation to the said show cause notice. Rejecting the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent has passed the impugned order divesting the cheque signing power of the petitioner and handing over the said power to the Block Development Officer. The said order is challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that originally the show cause notice was issued on 17.6.2013, for which the petitioner has submitted her reply. Subsequently, the impugned order came to be passed, cancelling the cheque signing power of the petitioner. He would further submit that as per the judgements of the Division Bench of this Court in (i) Pugazhendran vs. B.G.Balu, 2005 1 CTC 545and (ii) P.Suganthi vs. 1.The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats and others, 2011 2 CTC 381 , the petitioner should have been issued with a notice before passing the order, withdrawing the cheque signing power of the petitioner, but the same has not been done in this case. Even in the counter the respondents have not clearly stated about the said notice, which is contemplated in law. Therefore, the learned counsel would mainly contend that the authority has exceeded his power and the impugned order per se is illegal, non-est in the eye of law, as the same has been passed without following the principles of natural justice.