ORDER Orders passed by the 3rd Respondent-Collector (Panchayat Wing) Guntur District in Rc.No.4587/2009-G1, dated 08-05-2011 suspending the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 249 (6) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Chavali Gram Panchayat; Vemuru MandaI, Guntur District. He was served with a show cause notice, dated 22-09-2010 seeking his explanation alleging that he has committed irregularities while discharging the functions as Sarpanch. The petitioner received the show cause notice dated 22-09-2010, but failed to submit his explanation. The 3rd respondent, having regard to the nature of the irregularities, considered that the continuance of the petitioner in the office is detrimental to the interests of the Gram Panchayat and passed the impugned orders suspending him with immediate effect under Section 249 (6) of the Act. 3. The petitioner has challenged the said order mainly on the ground that earlier in respect of the same allegations his cheque drawing powers were withdrawn under Rule 42 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20-01-1995. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that action was initiated under the show cause notice dated 13-11-2009 seeking to prohibit the petitioner from drawing the funds of the Gram Panchayat. The allegation raised against him related to non-production of bills in respect of certain expenditure incurred by him and also in respect of the expenditure incurred in issuing advertisements in the newspapers. Pending enquiry into the said allegations, he has been punished by prohibiting him from drawing funds. Therefore, he would contend that when once the petitioner has been punished, he cannot be subjected to a second punishment on the same allegations. According to him, by virtue of the said allegations withdrawing his cheque drawing powers and also placing him under suspension, the petitioner has been subjected to double jeopardy. He would therefore submit that the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable. 4. I have considered the contention with reference to the material on record. It is true that under show cause notice dated 13-11-2009 the cheque drawing powers of the petitioner have been withdrawn. He would therefore submit that the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable. 4. I have considered the contention with reference to the material on record. It is true that under show cause notice dated 13-11-2009 the cheque drawing powers of the petitioner have been withdrawn. The said action has been initiated by the District Panchayat Officer in exercise of powers conferred on him under Rule 42 of the Rules (Rules relating to certain taxes and other lodging of moneys received by the Gram Panchayat and payment of money from the Gram Panchyat fund) issued in G.O.Ms. No.30 (PR, RD and R), dated 20-01-1995. Under the said rule the District Panchayat Officer may, for sufficient reasons recorded in writing, prohibit by an order any Sarpanch from drawing moneys of the Gram Panchayat and from the date of receipt of such an order by any bank or treasury, no payment shall be made to the Sarpanch for the periods specified in such order. 5. Thus, on an examination of the said Rule it is evident that the powers of the Sarpanch are restricted to the extent of drawing the cheques. The Rule' does not disable him from discharging all other functions. 6. In juxtaposition of the aforesaid action, a Sarpanch is also liable for disciplinary action under Section 249 (1) of the Act which contemplates removal on the grounds enumerated therein. He is also liable for suspension under Section 249 (6) pending investigation into the charges for eventual action thereon under sub-section (1). Thus, the proceedings initiated under Section 249 (6) is by way of disciplinary action, which may result in the removal of a Sarpanch from the office. 7. The two provisions - the one under Rule 42 of the Rules and the other under Section 249 (6) are mutually exclusive and operate in different spheres. While action under Rule 42 denies a Sarpanch from drawing funds of the Gram Panchayat, action under Section 249(6) may result in his removal. While the action under Rule 42 does not cause cessation of office, it is so caused under Section 249. Similarly, while the suspension or removal is a punishment, withdrawal of cheque drawing powers cannot be considered as punishment. While the action under Rule 42 does not cause cessation of office, it is so caused under Section 249. Similarly, while the suspension or removal is a punishment, withdrawal of cheque drawing powers cannot be considered as punishment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is subjected to double jeopardy when he is prohibited under Rule 42 from drawing the funds and placing him under suspension pending investigation under Section 249 (6) at the same time. 8. The learned counsel would submit that after his cheque drawing powers were withdrawn, it was not possible for him to indulge in any irregularity and the charges levelled against him are without any basis. Indisputably, investigation into the charges is pending and the petitioner can always participate in the enquiry and defend his case. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.