Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.S.Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. What is challenged in this writ petition is a notice dated 26.07.2011 issued under Section 205(4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act (in short referred to as 'Act') by the Tahsildar, Chengam Taluk, the 3rd respondent herein, caused to be delivered to the President and all members of the Village Panchayat for convening a meeting to be held on 03.08.2011 at 11.00 am to put forth their views on the removal proceedings against the petitioner. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the elected President of Vadamathur Village Panchayat in the Panchayat election held in the year 2006 for the tenure of office from 2006-2011. She claims that she has done her duty as President of the Village Panchayat for the past five years redressing all the grievances of the people of the Village. She has been awarded 'Grama Rathna' by a non-governmental organization in recognition of her service and also properly maintained the minute books and accounts and there is no manipulation or malpractice in the same. 3a. While so, the 3rd respondent, on 12.10.2010, inspected the Panchayat office and sent the petitioner a Memo of Show Cause Notice vide his letter No.Na.Ka.A2/1410/2011 dated 31.03.2011, pointing out certain drawbacks and seeking explanation for the same and the same was served on the petitioner on 07.04.2011. Since several queries were made in the Memo attached to the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner required 15 days' time for giving detailed explanation. But, in the Memorandum, it was stated that the Panchayat meetings convened on 07.08.2010, 06.09.2010, 07.10.2010, 12.11.2010, 09.12.2010, 07.01.2011 and 09.02.2011 were without agenda to the Panchayat Board members and the signatures of the Panchayat Board members were not obtained in some of the Resolutions and the Attendance Register was also not properly maintained. Further, certain assets of the Panchayat have not been shown for inspection as per Form No.16 and taxes under certain heads were not properly recovered. 3b. It is also pointed out that the library tax for the assessment year 2009-2010 was not paid to the Government. Further, certain assets of the Panchayat have not been shown for inspection as per Form No.16 and taxes under certain heads were not properly recovered. 3b. It is also pointed out that the library tax for the assessment year 2009-2010 was not paid to the Government. In the Memorandum, it is stated that certain cheques are without panchayat seals and the amount to the tune of Rs.19,405/- has been paid for the maintenance of GLR (motor) without M Book and without obtaining technical approval from the Engineer. It is also stated in the Memorandum that amount to the tune of Rs.3,02,077/- has been spent in contravention of G.O.No.203 (Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department) dated 20.12.2007 and there are no receipts available for spending the said amount. Further, the amount to the tune of Rs.59,700/- has also been spent against the Rules and Rs.88,145/- has been spent without obtaining the technical approval for purchasing electricity motors and pump sets. Another amount to the tune of Rs.1,21,750/- has also been spent without issuing tender and the same is also in contravention of G.O.No.149 (Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department) dated 16.07.1998. Also, an amount of Rs.93,045/- has been spent without the approval of the Block Development Officer (BDO) and further amount of Rs.82,791/- has been spent without the approval of the BDO and explanations were sought for against the above said allegations by the respondents. The petitioner would state that there is proper maintenance of account books for all the expenditure and that she has not misappropriated even a single paise from the Panchayat accounts and she has got proper approval from the entire Panchayat Board and the Officers concerned. 3c. That being the position, the 1st respondent herein pasted a notice dated 16.06.2011 in front of the petitioner's house in Proceedings No.BA 161/2010.A4, dated 16.06.2011 invoking the powers conferred under Sections 203 and 204 of the Act, thereby freezing the cheque powers of the petitioner and conferring the powers upon the 3rd respondent to issue cheques. The petitioner would state that the respondents have not initiated any proceedings under Section 205(1) of the Act and no show cause notice was served on her. Therefore, invoking ancillary Sections like Sections 203 and 204 of the Act without invoking the principal Section 205(1) of the Act is arbitrary, unfair and illegal. The petitioner would state that the respondents have not initiated any proceedings under Section 205(1) of the Act and no show cause notice was served on her. Therefore, invoking ancillary Sections like Sections 203 and 204 of the Act without invoking the principal Section 205(1) of the Act is arbitrary, unfair and illegal. Further, the petitioner has also not been served with any show cause notice stating that his cheque powers would be freezed under Sections 203 and 204 of the Act. 3d. The petitioner challenged the order of freezing the cheque power in Writ Petition No.15513 of 2011, as informed by the learned Special Government Pleader and the said writ petition is pending before this court. Thereafter, the respondents finally served the said order on the petitioner on 22.07.2011. Further, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.7851/2011 dated 26.07.2011 called upon the members of the Panchayat to attend the meeting to be held on 03.08.2011 at 11.00 am to remove the petitioner from the post of the President under Section 205(4) of the Act. It is mandatory that the Inspector of Panchayat sends a show cause notice under Section 205 (2) of the Act prior to the initiation of any further action under Sections 205(3) and (4) of the Act. In the present case, no such show cause notice was served on the petitioner at any time and as such, the proceedings dated 03.08.2011 is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3e. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the same on the ground that the 3rd respondent is not empowered to issue any proceedings under Section 205(4) of the Act in the absence of any show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent under Section 205(2) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent ought to have seen that there were no such manipulations and misappropriations as alleged and all the M books, account books, minute books were properly maintained by the petitioner. Hence this petition. 4. Respondents have filed a counter along with the Vacate Stay Petition and interalia stated as follows: 4a. The Assistant Director of Rural Development (Panchayats), Tiruvannamalai during the inspection of Village Panchayat Accounts of Vadamathur Village in Pudupalayam Block on 09.03.2011, found that the President of the said Village Panchayat, the petitioner herein has indulged in misappropriation of funds and committed various irregularities by flouting all rules and regulations. The Assistant Director of Rural Development (Panchayats), Tiruvannamalai during the inspection of Village Panchayat Accounts of Vadamathur Village in Pudupalayam Block on 09.03.2011, found that the President of the said Village Panchayat, the petitioner herein has indulged in misappropriation of funds and committed various irregularities by flouting all rules and regulations. The serious irregularities committed by the petitioner among others are as follows : (i) that she has appointed two Over Head Tank Operators in violation of the ban order issued in G.O.(Rt.) No.119 R.D.(E5) Department dated 10.05.2000. (ii) that she has failed to serve agenda for the meetings of the Village Panchayat to the members as required as per the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Quorum and Procedure for the convening and conduct of Meetings of Village Panchayat) Rules, 1999. (iii) that she has approved resolutions which were communicated through agenda in violation of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Quorum and Procedure for the convening and conduct of Meetings of Village Panchayat) Rules, 1999. (iv) that she has got signature of the Vice-President in unused cheques, in violation of the rules in vogue. (v) that she has misappropriated a sum of Rs.19,405/- towards maintenance of Ground Level Reservoir by encashing the amounts under various heads through the Panchayat Assistant instead of paying through third party cheque in favour of the firm concerned, as per the instructions issued in G.O.(Rt.) No.43 R.D. Department dated 21.02.2000. Further, she has not followed Tender procedures and failed to get Technical sanction and recorded in M-Books. (vi) that she has misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,02,077/- by encashing the amounts under various heads in the names of her husband and her son, instead of paying through third party cheque in favour of the firm concerned, as per the instructions issued in G.O.(Rt.) No.43 R.D. Dept. dated 21.02.2000. Further, she has not followed Tender procedures and failed to get Technical sanction and recorded in M-Books, wherever necessary. The expenditure has been made without stock entry. (vii) that she has misappropriated a sum of Rs.59,700/- by encashing the amounts through "Self Cheques" without proper vouchers and documents. (viii) that she has caused loss to the sum of Rs.88,145/- under the head "Maintenance of Power Pumps" by issuing cheques without proper documents. The expenditure has been made without stock entry. (vii) that she has misappropriated a sum of Rs.59,700/- by encashing the amounts through "Self Cheques" without proper vouchers and documents. (viii) that she has caused loss to the sum of Rs.88,145/- under the head "Maintenance of Power Pumps" by issuing cheques without proper documents. Further, she has not followed Tender procedures and failed to get Technical sanction as prescribed in G.O. (Rt.) No.84 R.D. (S3) Department dated 05.05.1998 and G.O.(Rt.) No.83 R.D. (S3) Department dated 29.06.2006. Further, no stock entries have been made. (ix) that she has caused loss to the sum of Rs.1,21,745/- under the head "Maintenance of Street Lights" by issuing cheques without following Tender procedures as prescribed in G.O.(Rt.) No.149 RD. (S3) Department dated 16.07.1998. Further, no stock entries have been made. (x) that she has caused loss to the sum of Rs.82,791/- by issuing cheques towards payment for "Construction of Thrashing Floor" without following Tender procedures. No Technical Sanction was obtained and the work was not recorded in M Book. (xi) further, she has failed to maintain the important registers properly. 4b. Pursuant to that, notes of inspection pointing out the defects noticed during the inspection were communicated to the petitioner through Letter Roc.No.A2/1410/2011 dated 31.03.2011 and the petitioner was given 14 days' time to submit rectification report and the said Notes of Inspection was served on the petitioner on 11.04.2011. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have submitted rectification report on or before 25.04.2011, but, she failed to submit the same even after a month's time. Therefore, the Inspector of Panchayats/Collector, on perusal of the relevant records, called for the explanation of the petitioner on the above mentioned lapses, under Sections 203, 204 and 205 of the Act through the Statutory Notices vide Roc.No.2444/2011/A2-1,2 dated 11.05.2011. The said notices were served on the petitioner on 12.05.2011. On receipt of the statutory notices under Sections 203, 204 and 205 of the Act, the petitioner, in the representation dated 13.05.2011, requested time up to 25.05.2011 to submit rectification report, on the notes of inspection. But, even after a lapse of several days from the date of extension, she did not show any interest to submit either rectification report or reply to the Statutory Notices issued under Sections 203, 204 and 205 of the Act. But, even after a lapse of several days from the date of extension, she did not show any interest to submit either rectification report or reply to the Statutory Notices issued under Sections 203, 204 and 205 of the Act. Therefore, the cheque drawing power of the petitioner was freezed as per the orders issued vide Proceedings in Roc No.2444/2011/A2 dated 14.06.2011. When the Block Development Officer (VP), Pudupalayam, went in person to serve copies of the said proceedings, the petitioner refused to receive it. Therefore, a copy of the order was pasted in the house of the petitioner through the Village Administrative Officer concerned on 17.06.2011, which is an admissible way of serving the notice. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4c. The petitioner, in her representation dated 24.06.2011, has stated that when the order freezing the cheque drawing power was given to her on the evening of 16.06.2011, she refused to accept it, stating that she can receive the order in consultation with the Assistant Director of Rural Development (Panchayats). Therefore, the said order was pasted on the wall of the petitioner's house through the Village Administrative Officer concerned. Thereafter, conceding to the request of the petitioner, a copy was given to her on 22.07.2011. Contrary to the above, the petitioner, in the affidavit has made false statement that the order freezing the cheque power itself is not served on her. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner is in the habit of suppressing facts and making false statements. 5. The only ground of attack of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is not empowered to issue any proceedings under Section 205(4) of the Act in the absence of any show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent under Section 205(2) of the Act and that the petitioner was not served with any show cause notice for initiation of the proceedings under Sections 203, 204 and 205 of the Act and as such, the passing of the impugned order is against all cannons of natural justice and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He would further contend that the 1st respondent ought to have seen that there were no such manipulations and misappropriations as alleged and all the M books, account books, minute books were properly maintained by the petitioner. 6. He would further contend that the 1st respondent ought to have seen that there were no such manipulations and misappropriations as alleged and all the M books, account books, minute books were properly maintained by the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the 1st respondent has initiated proceedings dated 16.06.2011 initially under Sections 203 and 204 of the Act and the same has been served on the petitioner in the manner as provided and thereafter, the 1st respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 205(2) of the Act and the same was served on the petitioner on 12.05.2011 and thereafter, the 1st respondent directed the 3rd respondent to convene a meeting under Section 205(4) of the Act and accordingly, the impugned notice has been issued. Therefore, the respondents have scrupulously followed the procedures while passing the impugned order, as per the provisions of law. She further pointed out that the petitioner, even after opportunity being given, has not submitted an explanation till date and hence, the respondents have proceeded to initiate and conclude the proceedings under Section 205 of the Act. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the President of the Vadamathur Village Panchayat, Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District. While so, the 3rd respondent inspected the Vadamathur Village Panchayat Office on 12.10.2010 and issued the show cause notice on 31.03.2011, for which the petitioner has not submitted her explanation, instead she has asked for 15 days' time for giving detailed explanation. 8. It is seen that earlier the 1st respondent has initiated proceedings under Sections 203 and 204 of the Act and passed an order vide proceedings in Roc.No.2444/2011/A2 dated 14.06.2011 to the effect that cheque drawing powers of the petitioner are freezed and the said order was served by the respondents to the petitioner through the Block Development Officer, but the petitioner refused to receive it. Therefore, a copy of the order was pasted on the house of the petitioner through the Village Administrative officer on 17.06.2011, which is an admissible way of serving the notice. Thereafter, the respondents have proceeded to conclude the proceedings and convene a meeting of the Village Panchayat. Accordingly, a notice of meeting under Section 205(4) of the Act has been issued by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the respondents have proceeded to conclude the proceedings and convene a meeting of the Village Panchayat. Accordingly, a notice of meeting under Section 205(4) of the Act has been issued by the 3rd respondent. Instead of participating in the said Panchayat meeting, the petitioner has hastened to move this court as if there was no show cause notice served on her. It is evident from the records as well as the statement made in the counter affidavit that notice was served by the 1st 12.05.2011 under Sections 203, 204 as well as respondent on the petitioner on under Section 205 of the Act. Thereafter, it was affixed on the petitioner's house on 17.06.2011. 9. A perusal of the entire records would reveal that the respective notices were served on the petitioner in the manner as provided and therefore, the only contention of the petitioner that no notice was served on her under Section 205 of the Act cannot be sustained. On going through the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that if the petitioner is innocent, she may prove the same by participating in the meeting convened by the Panchayat. 10. For the foregoing reasons and discussions made, I am of the considered opinion that nothing is legally infirmed in the proceedings initiated by the respondents and that the petition deserves no merit consideration. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the convening of the meeting as per the provisions of the Act. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.