ORDER : R. Subbiah, J. 1. Since the issue involved in these petitions are interconnected with each other, they are taken up together and decided by a common order. These Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent passed in Na.Ka.A7/Vu.E. (Vuu) 4664/2014-3 dated 10.12.2014 and quash the same. By the said impugned order, dated 10.12.2014, the Inspector of Panchayat, has taken away the cheque signing power of the petitioners and divested to the Block Development Officer, namely, the second respondent herein. 2. The petitioner in W.P. (MD). No. 416 of 2015 is the President of the Alangulam Village Panchayat and the petitioner in W.P. (MD). No. 6805 of 2015 is the Vice President of the said Panchayat. It is averred in the Writ Petitions that pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioners under Section 205 and 206(1) of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Act (for short 'the Act') dated 10.12.2014, the petitioners gave an explanation on 05.01.2015. While so, the first respondent has passed the order impugned in this Writ Petition dated 10.12.2014 invoking Section 205(1) and 206(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act taking away the cheque signing power of the petitioners and vested the same with the Block Development Officer, Pappireddipatti. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners are before this Court praying for the relief stated supra. 3. Pending Writ Petitions, an order of interim stay was granted by this Court in both the Writ Petitions. 4. On appearance, the first respondent has filed a vacate stay petition in M.P. (MD). No. 2 of 2015 in W.P. (MD). No. 416 of 2015 inter alia stating that the first respondent herein has received a letter dated 27.08.2014, 03.11.2014 and 07.11.2014 from the Block Development Officer, Kallal stating that the funds released under grant from the Commissioner of Rural Development Panchayat Raj was never credited in the account of some of the Village Panchayat and some Panchayat received lesser amount than the sanctioned amount. On verification, it is found that the fund in question had been credited into the account of Indian Bank, Sivagangai, Pandiyan Grama bank, Sivagangai and Union Bank of India, Sivagangai and all these accounts stand in the name of "President, Alangulam Village Panchayat'. On verification, it is found that the fund in question had been credited into the account of Indian Bank, Sivagangai, Pandiyan Grama bank, Sivagangai and Union Bank of India, Sivagangai and all these accounts stand in the name of "President, Alangulam Village Panchayat'. Further, it came to light that the said account were 'unauthorizedly opened" by the petitioner without informing the higher authorities and without assigning any reasons. The petitioner is engineered to create documents along with an employee of one Arokiyasamy, the then Assistant (dealing fund release section) now under suspension for forging and tampering office document which were sent to the banks for adjustment of grants to Village Panchayat as described in the annexure 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c). The petitioner along with the said Arokiyasamy misappropriated a sum of Rs. 35,79,325/- and the same have been credited in the aforesaid unauthorizedly opened account on various dates and these amounts have been withdrawn then and there. As a result, a case in crime number in FIR No. 58 of 2014 came to be registered against the petitioner and the Vice President respectively which resulted in calling for explanation from them through a letter dated 10.12.2014. Thereafter, both the President and Vice President left the station without discharging their duties. 5. Considering the welfare of the people, the cheque signing power was divested from the petitioner to the Block Development Officer. It is further stated that Alangulam Village Panchayat is a legal entity and there are legally permitted accounts which are in force for a long time. There is no necessity to open a new/additional account, when there is existence of permitted account. Since the petitioner is having mala fide intention, he did not obtain any permission and introduction from Block Development Officer, Sivagangai District or any higher authority. The petitioners were issued with a show cause notice under Section 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1994 dated 10.12.2014 for the very same allegation. When such is the case, he cannot expect to issue a separate notice to call for explanation from the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 6. In the mean while, a contempt petition also came to be filed by the petitioner in W.P. (MD). When such is the case, he cannot expect to issue a separate notice to call for explanation from the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 6. In the mean while, a contempt petition also came to be filed by the petitioner in W.P. (MD). No. 416 of 2015 alleging that inspite of an interim order granted by this Court on 13.1.2015 in favour of the petitioner, the cheque signing power was not given to the petitioner. 7. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in a number of occasions, this Court has held that the District Collector cannot act as an extra-constitutional authority over democratically elected President and Vice President for the simple reason that the power to sign cheque is a statutory power conferred on the President and Vice President under sub-section (3) of Section 188 of the Act. The reason for being given financial powers to the Panchayat concerned is that the Constitution and the Panchayat Act wanted to give financial powers to the local body and it was only for the said purpose, the legislature has vested the Executive Authority on the Panchayat. The impugned order is passed without getting any explanation from the petitioners. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law and it is liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the following judgment of this Court in Logeswari v. District Collector, Tiruchirappalli 2013 (2) CTC 846 : LNIND 2013 BMM 469. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the cheque signing power is one of the important activities of any Panchayat. In the case on hand, the petitioners have misused the powers available to them. In view of the interests of the Panchayat, it has been decided to take away the signing power of the petitioner and it was granted to the second respondent for the smooth functioning of the Panchayat. The said action is also taken in tune with the G.O.Ms. No. 146, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 17.08.2007. In view of the interests of the Panchayat, it has been decided to take away the signing power of the petitioner and it was granted to the second respondent for the smooth functioning of the Panchayat. The said action is also taken in tune with the G.O.Ms. No. 146, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 17.08.2007. The learned Additional Advocate General relying upon various judgments passed by this Court in different Writ Petitions has held that in the case of financial misdeeds, the Inspector of Panchayat can invoke his emergency powers. Therefore, there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner and both the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. I heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10. From the perusal of the records and also the judgments relied upon either side, I am of the opinion that in the case of financial misdeeds or irregularities which had taken place in the Panchayat in question the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat had power to withdraw the cheque signing power provided that a show cause notice is issued followed by an explanation obtained from the President and Vice President, as the case may be. However, in the case on hand, notice as well as the impugned order came to be issued on the same date preventing the petitioners from putting forth their defence. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders, dated 10.12.2014, are set aside in both the Writ Petitions. Consequently, the first respondent is directed to issue a show cause notice within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the petitioners are directed to offer their explanation within a period of two weeks from the date of show cause notice. After obtaining explanation, the first respondent/the Inspector of Panchayat, is directed to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of explanation offered by the petitioner. 11. As far as contempt petition is concerned, the interim stay granted by this Court is an ex parte order and immediately the respondents have also filed a vacate stay petition and hence, I do not find any wilful disobedience as alleged by the petitioner in WP. (MD). 11. As far as contempt petition is concerned, the interim stay granted by this Court is an ex parte order and immediately the respondents have also filed a vacate stay petition and hence, I do not find any wilful disobedience as alleged by the petitioner in WP. (MD). No. 416 of 2015. As such, the contempt petition stands closed. In the above-said terms, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.