Judgment :- 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 also been stated that the third respondent had also directed the petitioner, in W.P.No.13762 of 2011, to maintain proper accounts and to incur the expenditures only after getting the approval of the panchayat board. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner had sent an explanation, dated 25.5.2008, stating that necessary entries had been made in the cash book. It had also been stated that, at the time of the inspection, the petitioner could not produce the supplementary vouchers, as they had not been arranged properly and that they could not be produced at the time of the surprise inspection. The petitioner had also stated that all the supplementary vouchers and the expenditure vouchers had been properly maintained and that they could be verified, along with the field verification, to check if the works concerned had been done on the basis of the said vouchers. Thereafter, no further communication had been received by the petitioner. 4. 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.13762 of 2011, in respect of the three charges levelled against him. The charges framed against the petitioner, in W.P.No.13762 of 2011 are as follows: "1. That by withdrawing a sum of Rs.6,29,716/-from the panchayat fund without preparing sub-vouchers towards expenditure I was responsible for causing loss to the panchayat. 2. That as per Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, Panchayat meeting has to be conducted every month. The charges framed against the petitioner, in W.P.No.13762 of 2011 are as follows: "1. That by withdrawing a sum of Rs.6,29,716/-from the panchayat fund without preparing sub-vouchers towards expenditure I was responsible for causing loss to the panchayat. 2. That as per Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, Panchayat meeting has to be conducted every month. But no such meeting was convened from April 2007 onwards. 3. That the approval of the Panchayat Board has to be obtained for each and every expenditure. But without such approval, a sum of Rs.6,29,716/-was spent in violation of the Panchayats Act, 1994." 5. 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: "1. That I have put joint signature in the cheques while withdrawing a sum of Rs.6,29,716/- from the panchayat fund without the necessary sub vouchers. 2. That I have put joint signature in the cheques and incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.6,29,716/- from the panchayat fund without the resolution of the panchayat and in violation of the rules. 3. That while incurring expenditure I have violated the rules and regulations and thereby caused loss." 6. On receipt of the notices, the petitioners had submitted detailed explanations, in respect of the charges levelled against them. All the necessary details had been given to show that no irregularities had been committed by the petitioners. The petitioners had also requested the second respondent to verify the accounts and the registers and the minutes books to prove the claims made by the petitioners. Further, the third respondent had verified the accounts of the panchayat for the period, from April, 2007 to March, 2008. The total expenditure incurred by the panchayat, for the said period, was Rs.6,29,716/-. Further, by the proceedings, dated 24.6.2008, the Tahsildar, Ulundhurpettai, had convened a special meeting of the panchayat, as per the orders of the second respondent, dated 2.6.2008. Further, the third respondent had verified the accounts of the panchayat for the period, from April, 2007 to March, 2008. The total expenditure incurred by the panchayat, for the said period, was Rs.6,29,716/-. Further, by the proceedings, dated 24.6.2008, the Tahsildar, Ulundhurpettai, had convened a special meeting of the panchayat, as per the orders of the second respondent, dated 2.6.2008. All the eight members of the panchayat had participated in the meeting and had expressed their opinion stating that the petitioner had not committed any irregularity and that the expenditures, which had been incurred, were as per the resolution of the panchayat and with the consent of the board members. Requests had also been made to drop the proposed action against the petitioners to enable them, to continue as the President and the Vice-President of the panchayat. 7. It had also been stated that, by the proceedings, dated 25.11.2008, the second respondent had summoned all the members of the panchayat, for ascertain their views. All the members of the panchayat, including the President and the Vice-President, had given their statements stating that the meeting of the Panchayat had been convened, regularly, every month and the minutes of the meeting had been recorded. Further, the expenditure of the panchayat had been incurred only after getting the necessary approval and that such expenditure had been, subsequently, ratified by the Panchayat. 8. It had also been stated that, by the proceedings, dated 12.12.2008, the President of the Panchayat, who is the petitioner, in W.P.No.13762 of 2011, had been directed to furnish all the particulars regarding the works done and the expenditures incurred, by the Panchayat. The necessary documents and vouchers had been sent to the second respondent, along with the audited accounts of the Panchayat. 9. It had also been stated that, by the proceedings, dated 16.2.2010, the second respondent had issued show cause notices to the petitioners, seeking further explanations from them. Inspite of all the necessary details having been submitted, by the petitioners, the third respondent, by his proceedings, dated 30.4.2010, had passed orders removing the petitioners from the office of the President and Vice- President of the Panchayat. Such orders had been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, on 4.5.2010. The said orders had been communicated to the petitioners, by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 5.5.2010. 10. Such orders had been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, on 4.5.2010. The said orders had been communicated to the petitioners, by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 5.5.2010. 10. Challenging the said orders, the petitioners had filed writ petitions before this Court, in W.P.Nos.10732 of 2010 and W.P.No.10733 of 2010. By its order, dated 12.5.2010, this Court had dismissed the writ petitions stating that the petitioners could approach the first respondent, under Section 205(12) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed revision petitions before the second respondent, along with the applications for seeking stay of the proceedings of the second respondent. By an order, dated 13.5.2011, the first respondent had dismissed the revision petitions filed by the petitioners. In such circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the second respondent, the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions had been denied. 12. It had been stated that the Assistant Director of panchayats, Villupuram District, had inspected the Saravanapakkam village panchayat, on 18.3.2008. During the inspection, many lapses were found in the expenditures incurred from the panchayat fund and in respect of the conducting of the meeting of the panchayat. During the said inspection, the petitioners had not been in a position to produce any vouchers for the expenditure incurred, to the tune of Rs.6,29,716/-. On verification of the cash books, it had been found that the necessary entries had not been made, in respect of the expenditures. Therefore, show cause notices, under Section 205(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, had been issued to the petitioners, vide letter, dated 5.5.2008, containing the charges framed against the petitioners. 13. It had been further stated that concrete evidence of misappropriation of the panchayat funds was available and therefore, appropriate action had been initiated against the petitioners, for the irregularities committed by them. 14. It had also been stated that, during the said meeting, convened by the Tahsildar, Ulundurpet, on 24.6.2008, all the eight members of the panchayat board had expressed their opinion that the petitioners had not committed any irregularities and the expenditures had been incurred, as per the resolution passed by the panchayat. 14. It had also been stated that, during the said meeting, convened by the Tahsildar, Ulundurpet, on 24.6.2008, all the eight members of the panchayat board had expressed their opinion that the petitioners had not committed any irregularities and the expenditures had been incurred, as per the resolution passed by the panchayat. They had also expressed their views stating that the petitioners should be allowed to continue, as the President and the Vice-President of the panchayat. Hence, the impugned order had been passed holding the petitioners guilty of the charges levelled against them. As such, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are devoid of merits and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that, inspite of the petitioners having followed all the necessary procedures for maintaining the relevant records, for the expenditures incurred by them, on behalf of the Saravanapakkam village Panchayat, the second respondent had passed the orders removing the petitioners from the post of President and Vice-President of the Saravanapakkam village Panchayat. No proper reasons had been given, while rejecting the explanation submitted by the petitioners. The expenditures incurred on behalf of the panchayat had been approved and ratified by the members of the panchayat Board. Proper accounts had been maintained, in respect of the expenditures incurred by the petitioners. 16. He had further submitted that regular meetings of the panchayat had been held and therefore, the charges levelled against the petitioners cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 17. He had further submitted that the second respondent had failed to follow the procedures contemplated, under Section 205(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. Further, there was no willful omission or commission on the part of the petitioners for the second respondent to invoke the powers vested in him, under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. Therefore, the orders of the second respondent, dated 4.5.2010, and the consequential orders passed by the first respondent, dated 13.5.2011, are arbitrary, illegal and void. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, in K.RAMALINGAM Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION ( 2011 (2) CTC 134 ) and THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, in K.RAMALINGAM Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION ( 2011 (2) CTC 134 ) and THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. S.RAMASAMY ( 2011 (5) CTC 197 ), in support of his contention that the power vested in the second respondent, under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, ought to be used only under exceptional circumstances and that such power should be exercised by the authorities concerned, with utmost care and caution and not in a routine and casual manner. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the impugned orders of the second respondent do not contain proper reasons for not accepting the resolution of the special meeting of the panchayat, convened by the Tahsildar, Ulundurpet, as per the orders of the second respondent, dated 2.6.2008. Further, sufficient reasons have not been given, by the second respondent, for arriving at his conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioners had been proved. Further, it has not been stated that the petitioners had willfully omitted or refused to carry out their duties prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. 20. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioners had been proved, by sufficient evidence. The petitioners had misappropriated the funds of the panchayat, by showing the false accounts. Proper accounts had not been maintained for the expenditures, said to have been incurred by the President and Vice-President, who are the petitioners herein. Further, prior approval had not been obtained from the panchayat board for incurring such expenditures. Since, the charges levelled against the petitioners had been proved, the second respondent had passed the impugned orders, dated 30.04.2010, removing the petitioners from the posts held by them in the panchayat. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to claim that the members of the board had unanimously stated in the special meeting, convened by the Tahsildar, Ulundhur Pettai, based on the orders of the second respondent, dated 24.6.2008, that the petitioners had incurred the expenditures, after getting the necessary approval. Therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed. 21. Therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed. 21. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders of the second respondent, dated 30.4.2010, removing the petitioners from the post of President and Vice-President of Saravana pakkam village Panchayat, and the consequential orders passed by the first respondent, dated 13.5.2011, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. 22. Sufficient reasons had not been given by the second respondent, in his orders, dated 30.4.2010, while passing such orders removing the petitioners from their posts. Sufficient evidence is not available for the second respondent to arrive at his conclusion that the petitioners had misappropriated the funds of the panchayat. Proper reasons had not been given for rejecting the statements made by the members of the panchayat board, in the special meeting convened by the Tahsildar, Ulundhurpettai, on 24.6.2008, pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent, dated 2.6.2008. 23. From the decisions cited supra, it is clear that the second respondent ought to have exercised the power vested in him, under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, with utmost care and caution and that he should not use such power, in a routine and casual manner. 24. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been in a position to show that sufficient evidence was available for the second respondent to arrive at his conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioners had been proved. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders of the second respondent, dated 4.5.2010, and the consequential orders passed by the first respondent, dated 13.5.2011, are liable to be set aside. Hence, they are set aside. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed, as prayed for by the petitioners, in the present writ petitions. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.2 and 2 of 2011 are closed.