ORDER The petitioner, who was elected as a President of the Maramangalathupatty Panchayat, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent, the District Collector, Salem, dated 28.02.2015 and the consequential notification published in the Government Gazette, dated 09.03.2015, by which the petitioner was removed from the post of President of the said village Panchayat. 2. The petitioner was elected to the said office on 25.10.2011. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner would admit that she is not well-versed with the Ministerial function of the Panchayat and she was taking the advice of the then Panchayat Clerk, P.Subramanian till he was promoted as Junior Assistant and posted in the Panchayat Union office in August, 2012 and in the vacancy so caused, one C.Manickavasu was appointed and he joined duty on 24.08.2012, who happens to be the relative of the former Panchayat Clerk Mr. P.Subramanian, who is also said to have been advising the petitioner. It is stated that the newly appointed Panchayat Clerk in-turn took the advice from the from Clerk Mr. P.Subramanian. The petitioner would state that during July 2013, the Panchayat Clerk, Mr. C.Manickavasu, obtained a cheque dated 01.07.2013, for Rs.6,300/-, for payment of salary of Overhead Tank Operators of the Panchayat. It is stated that after about one month when the petitioner was going through the bank passbook, found that the same cheque was presented and a sum of Rs.96,300/-, was drawn from the Panchayat account and this was encashed by Mr. C.Manickavasu, Panchayat Clerk. The petitioner came to know that the cheque issued for Rs.6,300/- was used to encash this amount by prefixing the digit 9 before 6,300/-. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the third respondent requesting the third respondent to verify the bank account of the Panchayat and also to transfer the erring Panchayat Clerk. 3. The third respondent directed the Deputy Block Development Officer to take necessary action on the complaint who conducted an inspection and found that the amounts from the Panchayat Account had transferred to the personal account of the former Panchayat Clerk, P.Subramanian, and cheque for Rs.23,17,184/-, and a sum of Rs.15,72,227/-, has been paid to the said P.Subramanian, by means of a self cheque of the Panchayat. Earlier, the third respondent is said to have initiated surcharge proceedings against the former President of the same Panchayat and also taken action against erstwhile Panchayat Clerk P.Subramanian. While so, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 21.05.2014, alleging that a sum of Rs.19,96,293/-, has been transferred to the account of the then Panchayat Clerk P.Subramanian and one Yuvaraj, cashier of Veerapandi Panchayat Union during the period from 25.10.2011 to 19.09.2013. It was further stated that a sum of Rs.15,97,868/-, out of Rs.19,96,293/- has been transferred to the personal account of the then Panchayat Clerk P.Subramanian and a sum of Rs.3,98,425/- had been transferred to the account of Yuvaraj, cashier of the Panchayat Union. It is submitted that the show cause notice did not make any allegation that the petitioner had committed any misappropriation. 4. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 29.05.2014, narrating the factual position and the action taken against the Panchayat Clerks. The petitioner denied all the allegations made in the show cause notice and emphasised that the entire episode is a handiwork of Panchayat Clerks, P.Subramanian, and C.Manickavasu. The petitioner also requested an inspection be conducted to find out all the irregularities and illegalities. It was further submitted that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, Mr. C.Manickavasu was placed under suspension and subsequently transferred and charge memo has been issued to P.Subramanian and he has also been placed under suspension. It is submitted that without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the first respondent by proceedings, dated 30.07.2014, directed the Tahsildar, Salem (West), to convene a meeting for consideration of the notice, the explanation and the proposal for removal of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner would state that the proceedings of the first respondent, is contrary to the provisions of Section 205(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act (Act) and in gross violation of the law laid down in the case of P.Packiyam vs. The Inspector of Panchayat reported in 2013 (1) CWC 797. It is further submitted that there is an inherent defect inasmuch as the show cause notice was not issued under Section 205(1) of the Act. It is further submitted that there is an inherent defect inasmuch as the show cause notice was not issued under Section 205(1) of the Act. It is stated that in the meeting convened by the Tahsildar, 10 members, out of 15, accepted the petitioner's explanation and voted against the proposal to remove the petitioner and five ward members, who belong to the rival parties supported the proposal for removal of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice was issued on 03.01.2015, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. It is submitted that in the second show cause notice, no reasons have been assigned as to why the views of the majority of the ward members were not taken into consideration. It is submitted that the second show cause notice is bad in law in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat vs. Devi Parasuraman, reported in 2009 (4) CTC 609 . The petitioner submitted her explanation dated 23.01.2015, pointing out the infirmities. The gist of the explanation has been extracted in pages 13 and 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after elaborately referring to the factual details as mentioned above, submitted that the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside on the grounds (i) that the notice issued by the first respondent, dated 21.05.2014 is not a notice under Section 205 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994; (ii) that the first respondent failed to apply his mind and has not assigned any reasons by recording his satisfaction as to why the petitioner should be proceeded against under Section 205(2) of the Act. To support such contention reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of P.Packiyam vs. The Inspector of Panchayat (supra); (iii) that the first respondent failed to assign any reasons for differing with the views of the majority of the members, who have accepted the explanation given by the petitioner and voted against the proposal to remove her from the post of President. That this procedural violation has been held to be bad in law in the case of Devi Parasuraman, (supra); (iv) that the first respondent concluded in the impugned order that the petitioner by using her self-cheque misappropriated the funds of the Panchayat, whereas that was not the charge against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. S.Ramasamy, reported in 2011 (5) CTC 197 ; and (v) that the impugned order is diametrically opposed to the allegations based on which, the charge has been framed against the former Panchayat Clerks Mr.P.Subramanian and Mr.C.Manickavasu both of whom have been placed under suspension. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents by referring to the counter affidavit filed by the first and third respondents submitted that the petitioner signed the cheques without filling the name of the person to whom the cheque is issued and the stand taken by the petitioner is not acceptable as she has paved way for misappropriation of the public money and by her irresponsible conduct, she has been root cause for misappropriation of Panchayat fund to the tune of Rs.19,96,293/-. It is submitted that the procedure stipulated under Section 205 of the Panchayat Act, was scrupulously followed and after verification of all the documents and considering the minutes of the meeting as submitted by the Tahsildar, the order of removal was passed. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an appeal in terms of Section 205(12) of the Act and without exhausting the statutory remedy, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is further stated that the petitioner ought to have impleaded the Panchayat Clerks, P.Subramanian and C.Manickavasu, as parties in the Writ Petition, as the petitioner has stated that those two persons are responsible for the illegalities. On the above grounds, the learned Additional Government Pleader seeks to sustain the impugned proceedings. 8. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 9. On the above grounds, the learned Additional Government Pleader seeks to sustain the impugned proceedings. 8. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 9. The petitioner has admitted that she was not well acquainted with the Ministerial functions and other nuances of administration of village Panchayat and she would further state that because of her incapacity, she sought the assistance of the Panchayat Clerks by name P.Subramanian, who was later promoted and transferred to the Panchayat Union and the new incumbent C.Manickavasu, who was appointed in the said vacancy. The petitioner has not denied the fact that she signed the cheques in question. 10. At the out set, it has to be pointed out the stand taken by the petitioner itself would be sufficient to remove the petitioner from the elected office. The petitioner being a President of a village Panchayat having been elected to the office, is bound to discharge her duties and responsibilities in accordance with the manual of procedures evolved for such purpose. Thus, the statement made by the petitioner that she did not know how to manage the Ministerial functions of the Panchayat and she was solely depending on the Panchayat Clerks itself would be sufficient to hold that the petitioner did not discharge her duties and responsibilities as required to be done under the provisions of the Act and the notifications issued thereunder. 11. Be that as it may, the petitioner would state that the impugned proceedings are vitiated on account of procedural infirmities. Firstly, by stating that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner is not a notice under Section 205(1) of the Act; secondly, by contending that the District Collector did not assign specific reasons as to why the views of the 10 ward members, who voted against the proposal for removal of the petitioner, were brushed aside or in other words not even considered; thirdly the final order of removal passed by the first respondent, has misconstrued the charge against the petitioner and the entire proceedings are vitiated. 12. As regards the first contention, perusal of the notice dated 21.05.2014, shows that the notice does not state that it has been issued under Section 205(1) of the Act, though the notice spell out all the allegations. 12. As regards the first contention, perusal of the notice dated 21.05.2014, shows that the notice does not state that it has been issued under Section 205(1) of the Act, though the notice spell out all the allegations. However, the petitioner did not raise such an objection at the earliest available time, i.e., immediately after the show cause notice, however, submitted her reply dated 29.05.2014. Upon consideration of the reply, the District Collector decided to proceed further against the petitioner being not satisfied with the explanation offered and a direction was issued to the Tahsildar to convene a meeting of the Panchayat. In the said notice dated 30.07.2014, there is a reference to the earlier notice dated 29.05.2014 and it is stated to be issued under Section 205(1) of the Act. On receipt of the intimation regarding the convening of the meeting by the Tahsildar, the petitioner did not raise any objection as to the defect in the notice nor pointed out any error in the manner in which the first respondent has invoked his power and directed the Tahsildar to convene a meeting. The Tahsildar issued notice dated 04.12.2014, convening the meeting of the Panchayat on 15.12.2014 at 11.a.m., this notice was accepted by the petitioner as well as other Ward Members and even at that stage of the matter, the petitioner did not raise any objection regarding the procedure adopted by the first respondent or the Tahsildar. The minutes of the meeting convened by the Tahsildar reveals that 10 Ward Members supported the petitioner and voted against the proposal for her removal and 5 members voted in favour of the proposal. Therefore, the District Collector was to take a conscious decision in the matter after examining the records, the explanation offered by the petitioner, the views of the Ward Members as recorded by the Tahsildar in the meeting convened by him and after perusing all the documents take a decision as to whether the matter has to be proceeded further. The first respondent decided to proceed further and issued the second show cause notice dated 03.01.2014. 13. The first respondent decided to proceed further and issued the second show cause notice dated 03.01.2014. 13. It is seen that on receipt of the explanation, the first respondent has examined the matter in its entirety and has pointed out that the procedure required to be followed as directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1257 of 2008, at 19.08.2008 was followed and an opportunity was granted and this has been specifically stated in the impugned order on the following lines:- 14. Furthermore, it is seen that the first respondent has analysed the entire factual details and given elaborate reasons as to why the petitioner is not entitled to continue in office in any longer. As pointed out earlier, the non-mentioning of the statutory provision in the notice dated 21.05.2014, would not vitiate the entire proceedings and at no earlier point of time, the petitioner has pointed out such an issue nor the petitioner has stated that on account of non-mentioning of the statutory provision, she has been put to prejudice. The petitioner having participated in the proceedings without any demur cannot now state that the order of removal stands vitiated, because the first notice dated 21.05.2014, does not mention the statutory provisions namely Section 205(1) of the Act. As regards the views of the majority of the Ward Members in the preceding paragraphs, the findings recorded by the first respondent has been extracted, which is sufficient to hold that the adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner and with due application of mind, the first respondent has taken a decision to differ with the views of the majority of the Ward Members. It is to be reiterated that the petitioner did not deny her signature in the cheques used for siphoning off the Panchayat funds. 15. It may be true that there is no specific allegation that the petitioner has herself misappropriated the funds of the Panchayat to the tune of Rs.19,96,293/-. However, it is an admitted fact that the funds of the Panchayat were siphoned off from the Panchayat Account and the petitioner has admitted before the first respondent as well as before this Court that she had signed cheques without mentioning the names. This irresponsible act of the petitioner is sufficient ground to disqualify her from discharging duties as the President of the panchayat. This irresponsible act of the petitioner is sufficient ground to disqualify her from discharging duties as the President of the panchayat. The reason assigned by the petitioner stating that she was dependent on the Panchayat Clerks are all versions which are very hard to believe. 16. Furthermore, the amount involved is substantial and the petitioner herself having admitted that she was negligent, her conduct has to be held to be willful abuse of her position. The disciplinary action initiated against the Panchayat Clerks is of little consequence in the present proceedings as they have to be independently proceeded both departmentally as well as before the Criminal forum for the illegalities done by them. The petitioner cannot use the proceedings initiated against the Panchayat Clerks as a cloak to shield her from her misdemeanor. 17. Thus, in the light of the admitted factual position, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable and cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, more particularly in the light of the candid admission of the petitioner herself. 18. In the light of the above, no grounds have been made out by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.