R. Mahadevan, J. - (1.)THIS writ petition has been focussed, to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide Na. Ka. A7/1101/2013, dated 12.02.2015 and direct the first respondent to provide the petitioner the power of maintaining Bank accounts and signing the cheques as second signatory relating to Kanchipatti Village Panchayat, kalaiyarkoil Panchayat Union, Sivagangai District. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, are as follows:
1.1. The case of the petitioner is that he was elected as Vice President of Marakkathur Village Panchayat and the fourth respondent, the President of Kanchipatti Village Panchayat, had committed several irregularities and misappropriated the funds of the Panchayat. Therefore, he made a representation dated 12.07.2014 to the third respondent seeking necessary action against the fourth respondent, followed by reminders. Meanwhile, the first respondent has issued a show cause notice dated 18.11.2014, under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, (in short 'the Act') as to why action should not be initiated to cancel his cheque signing power, to which, the petitioner also made a representation dated 25.11.2014. Without considering the same, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 12.02.2015, cancelling the cheque signing power of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

1.2. The fourth respondent filed the counter affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner had not co -operated with the fourth respondent in the administration of the Panchayat and he refused to sign the cheques and hence, the entire functioning of the Panchayat has been stalled by the petitioner and because of the same, no welfare schemes could be implemented and the fourth respondent made a complaint to the authorities concerned, based on which, the third respondent, vide proceedings dated 17.03.2014, directed the petitioner to sign the cheques. Even thereafter, the petitioner refused to do so. A criminal case is also pending against the petitioner in Cr. No. 325 of 2012 on the file of the Kalayarkoil Police Station. As the petitioner has been evading from discharging his duties, the second respondent directed the third respondent to conduct enquiry on the allegations against the petitioner and thereafter only, the first respondent passed the impugned order, cancelling the cheque signing power of the petitioner and handed over the same to the third respondent until further orders and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.

(2.)MR . D. Shanmugarajasethupathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions:
2.1. The first respondent has no power under Section 203 of the Act to take away the cheque signing power of the petitioner and he cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings under the guise of the said power against the petitioner;

2.2. The power vested upon the first respondent under Section 203 of the Act could only be exercised only in case of emergency;

2.3. The statutory power given to the petitioner cannot be taken away by the first respondent by exercising the emergency powers.

2.4. In the absence of a specific power conferred upon the first respondent to take away the cheque signing power of the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is untenable in law.

2.5. Despite the allegations made by the petitioner as against the fourth respondent for misappropriation of the funds of the Panchayat, the first respondent has passed the impugned order, based on the false complaint given by the fourth respondent;

2.6. The power given to the petitioner to sign the cheques is a statutory power conferred on him under sub -section (3) of Section 188 of the Act, which, could not be taken away by the first respondent, in exercise of the emergency powers under Section 203 of the Act.

2.7. In effect, the impugned order passed by the first respondent warrants interference by this Court.

2.8. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decision of this Court in Logeswari v. The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli reported in : 2013 (2) CTC 846.

Though the respective learned Government Pleaders took notice for the respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 so far.

(3.)MR . T.R. Janarthanan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner has been duly advised to cooperate with the administration of the Panchayat, but, he continued to refrain from signing the cheques, which, resulted in hindrance to the implementation of the welfare schemes to the Panchayat and on several occasions, the petitioner has been given opportunity to discharge his duties, however, it went in vain. He further submitted that based on the complaints made against the petitioner, the first respondent has initiated appropriate proceedings against him in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 203 of the Act and that such power has been exercised by the first respondent, based on the enquiry report of the third respondent and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed, cancelling the cheque signing power, in order to ensure the implementation of the welfare schemes to the Panchayat and otherwise, the interest of the public would be prejudiced by the acts of the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.