Judgment : The petitioner, in this Writ Petition, is the Vice President of Pudhuchathiram Village Panchayat, Reddiarchathiram Panchayat Union, Dindigul District and she has challenged the order of the first respondent, dated 24.05.2013, by which the cheque signing power of the petitioner has been withdrawn and entrusted to the fifth respondent who is a Ward Member. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleaders appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 3. The petitioner was initially elected as an independent candidate in the ward election conducted for the Village Panchayat. Thereafter, by majority votes, she was elected as Vice President of the Panchayat and she has been discharging the duties in lawful manner and to the satisfaction of the entire village panchayat. While so, the petitioner was compelled by the President of the Panchayat to sign in a blank cheque to effect payment for the work which has not been done by the Contractors. This has been objected by the petitioner and she has given a representation to the first respondent, District Collector, on 07.01.2013, in which the petitioner has listed out various illegalities which have been committed by the fourth respondent, President and prayed for action. In the said representation, apart from the petitioner, seven other ward members are also signatories. Further, there was a petition given to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, by the petitioner and the five other ward members requesting for action against the President and Secretary of the panchayat. In addition to that, a paper news which appeared in a Tamil daily on 08.01.2013 shows that the petitioner and seven councillors had met the District Collector and submitted a representation in person. This was followed by further representation on 16.04.2013. While so, it appears that at the instigation of the President, the Secretary of the Panchayat filed a police complaint before the Oddanchathiram Police Station against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had damaged sintex tank owned by the panchayat. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.151 of 2013. Even thereafter the petitioner has submitted a representation to the District Collector bringing to the notice about the various illegalities which have been committed. 4. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.151 of 2013. Even thereafter the petitioner has submitted a representation to the District Collector bringing to the notice about the various illegalities which have been committed. 4. In the meantime, the first respondent has issued a show cause notice, dated 16.05.2013, calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation within a period of seven days as to why the cheque signing power should not be withdrawn from her, on the allegation from the President that she is refusing to cooperate in signing the cheques along with the President. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 21.05.2013 reiterating the earlier complaint given by the petitioner as against the President as well as the Secretary of the Panchayat and various other demeanours committed by them and also referring the financial irregularities committed by them. In order to protect the funds of the panchayat, the petitioner had to take a firm decision in the matter and that is why the representation was made to the District Collector. The said representation was received by the first respondent and it is seen from the impugned order that the first respondent, without conducting any enquiry or without even verifying as to the genuineness of the allegations made by the petitioner, from January 2013, in a mechanical manner, has rejected the petitioner's representation and passed the impugned order withdrawing her cheque signing power. It is seen that in the impugned order, the reason assigned is that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner for the alleged breaking of sintex tank of the Panchayat. In fact, this allegation was not mentioned in the show cause notice and it is a new ground on which the impugned order has been passed. 5. Apart from that, the first respondent has not addressed the issue with regard to the complaint against the petitioner, under what circumstances the petitioner, along with six other ward members, had given the representation on more than two occasions and also met the District Collector in person and such other matters. Therefore, without analysing those aspects mechanically the order could not have been passed withdrawing the cheque signing power of the petitioner, as Vice President being a joint signatory in cheques along with the President. The petitioner has the duty to protect the funds of the panchayat. Therefore, without analysing those aspects mechanically the order could not have been passed withdrawing the cheque signing power of the petitioner, as Vice President being a joint signatory in cheques along with the President. The petitioner has the duty to protect the funds of the panchayat. If certain illegalities come to the light of the petitioner, she could very well put up her objection before the District Collector or the other subordinate officers who are required to examine the correctness of those allegations. However, no endeavour has been made in the instant case and the impugned order without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and without conducting any enquriy and based on the material which do not form the basis of the show cause notice, has been passed. 6. For all the above reasons, the impugned order is held to be illegal and contrary to law. The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.