ORDER - In the instant case, petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned order passed in Surcharge Case No. 22/92-93, dated 29th August, 1998 passed by first respondent and the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 517 of 1998, dated 13th March, 2001, marked as Annexures-E and F, respectively. Further, petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner for the remaining unpaid period. 2. The grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner joined as 'Secretary' of the Halenahalli Service Co-operative Society Limited, Sira Taluk during 1973. In the year 1976, the said Halenahalli Service Co-operative Society Limited came to be amalgamated with the second respondent-Chikkanahalli Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha under the Re-organisation Scheme and on amalgamation of both the above said Societies, a new Society under the name and style of Chikkanahalli Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Chikkanahalli came into existence. The petitioner who was working as 'Secretary' in the Halenahalli Service Co-operative Society before amalgamation, came to be designated and continued in service of the new amalgamated Society as 'Secretary' from 1976 to 1991. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred to v. S.S.S.N., Doddabanagere, and there, petitioner was not permitted to report for duty. 3. While petitioner was working in second respondent-Society, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, has approved the cadre strength and pay scales of the staff of second respondent-Society, exercising his powers under Rule 17( 1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') and thereafter, the pay scale has been extended from time to time and finally as per the General Body Meeting of the second respondent-Society held on 24th December, 1987, a unanimous decision was taken to sanction the pay scale of petitioner at Rs. 1190-30-1400-40-1800-50-2200 and the same was given effect from 1st January, 1988 in addition to the other admissible dearness allowances payable to Government employees. Subsequently, on 22nd April, 1988, a proposal was forwarded as per Rule 17(1) of the Rules to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies through the first respondent and no action was taken on the said proposal for either accepting or rejecting the said proposal and the same was kept pending in the Department. However, the second respondent-Society permitted the petitioner to draw the pay scale at the rate of Rs. However, the second respondent-Society permitted the petitioner to draw the pay scale at the rate of Rs. 1190-2200/- as per the decision taken by the second respondent in the General Body Meeting of the second respondent-Society during 1988 till the month of December 1990 and that, petitioner has been paid the salary in the same pay scale even at Hebbur Farmers Service Co-operative Society Limited, Hebbur, Tumkur Taluk, where petitioner has been working as 'Managing Director' upon his transfer. Be that as it may. 4. The Managing Director of D.C.C. Bank, Tumkur, who was the 'convenor' of the Common Cadre Committee, empowered to appoint, suspend and transfer the employees of the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies, has wrongly determined the pay scale of petitioner at Rs. 490-950 and held that, petitioner has been drawing excess salary from second respondent-Society and ordered for making good of the same. The said finding was given based on the pay scale approved by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tumkur. After the petitioner was transferred from the post of 'Secretary' of second respondent-Society, the first respondent had ordered for inspection of accounts of the second respondent-Society under Section 65 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and at the time of inspection, it was observed that, there is withdrawal of excess salary of Rs. 44,001.10 ps. and accordingly ordered for recovery of the above sum from the petitioner. In the light of the same, the Competent Authority has initiated the surcharge proceedings under Section 69 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act against the petitioner in Surcharge Proceedings No. 22/92-93 for recovery of the said amount pointed out as excess salary. The petitioner has participated in the proceedings and filed the detailed objection taking a specific stand that, the salary drawn by the petitioner is just and proper and the same was approved in the General Body Meeting of the second respondent-Society. The first respondent, after considering the defence put forth by the petitioner, has passed the order, allowing the surcharge proceedings and ordered for recovery of Rs. 44,001.10 Ps. with interest at the rate of 16% per annum vide Annexure-E. Against the instant order passed by first respondent, in Surcharge Proceedings No. 22/92-93, petitioner has filed an appeal on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 517 of 1998. 44,001.10 Ps. with interest at the rate of 16% per annum vide Annexure-E. Against the instant order passed by first respondent, in Surcharge Proceedings No. 22/92-93, petitioner has filed an appeal on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 517 of 1998. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal on 21st March, 2001 and the Appellate Tribunal, in turn, after affording opportunity to both the parties and after considering the material available on record, has dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by first respondent in surcharge proceedings. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed in the surcharge proceedings by first respondent and also the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 517 of 1998, vide Annexures-E and F respectively, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for first respondent. 6. After careful perusal of the order passed by first respondent, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and after careful evaluation of the entire material on record, it is manifest on the face of the said orders that, both the authorities have not committed any error or illegality or material irregularity. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner as well as second respondent-Society, and after considering the grounds urged by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal, has recorded a finding holding that, the Inspecting Officer has observed that, petitioner has drawn excess salary to an extent of Rs. 44,001.10 from the second respondent-Society and during the period from December 1987 to December 1999 and further observed that, the order passed by first respondent in surcharge proceedings was on the basis of the relevant material available on file and after affording opportunity to petitioner. Further, it is specifically observed that, the second respondent-Society has passed the resolution for enhancement of the pay scale of the petitioner in the pay scale at Rs. 1190 to 2200 and the same was forwarded for approval to the first respondent-Competent Authority and no approval as such has been accorded by the Competent Authority nor the petitioner has produced any document as such to show that, permission has been accorded in respect of the pay scale drawn by petitioner, as envisaged under Rule 17 of the Rules. 7. 7. The Appellate Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the entire original records made available by State Representative, by assigning cogent reasons at Paragraphs 17 and 20 of the order, has held that, petitioner has not furnished before the first respondent any documentary evidence in support of his contention that, he has secured the employment under the stipendiary Scheme and is entitled to leave the services of the Society and therefore observed that, the second respondent-Society alone is not competent to take a decision for enhancement of pay scales of the petitioner nor petitioner has produced any documents to show that, the proposal forwarded by second respondent for enhancement of pay scale has been approved by the Competent Authority as required under the mandatory Rule 17(1) of the Rules. Unless, approval is granted by the Competent Authority, the enhanced salary cannot be drawn and disbursed to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has drawn the enhanced salary without the approval from the Competent Authority nor there is any material forthcoming to the effect that, the proposal as required was sent to the Competent Authority for approval. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal opined that, the Inspecting Authority has come to the conclusion that, petitioner has drawn excess salary over and above the approved pay scale of Rs. 410-700/- and observed that, petitioner has taken false contention and there are no documentary evidence in support of his contention. Therefore, the impugned order passed by first respondent is in accordance with the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and accordingly, held that, petitioner has failed to make out good grounds for interference nor the Tribunal finds any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by first respondent and accordingly, dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner. The said valid reasons assigned by the Appellate Tribunal, are after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. Hence, in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities, after careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, interference by this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not justifiable nor it is permissible in view of the well-settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in host of judgments. Therefore, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.