ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings dt: 30.08.2004 in Ref.No.Adm.No.39/2004-A2 of the respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unsustainable, unreasonable, void and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while working as a Manager at the respondent Bank during 16.11.2001 to 09.01.2003 was alleged to have been involved in misappropriation of funds of the society. 4. An inspection report was submitted to the Bank by the Assistant General Manager after conducting inspection under Section 53 of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. It is alleged that the petitioner along with Ex-secretary and Supervisors of the respondent Bank were charged with misappropriation of amount of Rs. 13,23,300/-. It is further alleged that the petitioner was specifically responsible for misappropriation of amount of Rs.2,10,400/-. It is alleged that fourteen loans in the name of dead persons were disbursed during the tenure of the petitioner as a Manager in the respondent Bank. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Disciplinary Authority basing on the inspection report has passed an impugned order dated 30.08.2004 whereby the petitioner was awarded the punishment of scaling down her scale to minimum in the cadre. The learned counsel also submits that the surcharge order dated 20.01.2004 was issued fixing the responsibility of the officers of the Bank involved in the alleged misappropriation and the petitioner was alleged to have been responsible for disbursement of loans in the names of the deceased, loans drawn by forging instruments in the name of the members who sold away their lands and whose documents were returned and further allegation that loans were drawn by forging the signatures of the loan applicants. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the surcharge order was challenged and the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal in O.A.No.63 of 2004 has set aside the surcharge order insofar as petitioner is concerned. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the surcharge order was challenged and the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal in O.A.No.63 of 2004 has set aside the surcharge order insofar as petitioner is concerned. 6. Attention of the Court is drawn to the findings of the Disciplinary Authority wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner had minimal role insofar as the misappropriation is concerned and that the petitioner had followed procedure insofar as disbursement of loans is concerned. The role of the Secretary to obtain signatures of the loanees on vouchers and bonds and the responsibility of the Secretary to pass orders on the vouchers for payment of loan amount is different and distinct when compared to the role of the petitioner as Manager of the branch. It is also observed that the petitioner has executed the documents in good faith. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the very basis for the order under challenge is the surcharge order which has been set aside by the Tribunal. The copy of the order passed in O.A.No.63 of 2004 is also placed on record. Learned counsel further submits that when the findings of the Disciplinary Authority also imply that the petitioner has executed the documents in good faith after loan applications were forwarded as per the procedure laid by the Secretary and Supervisors of the branch. It is also submitted that there was no personal gain to the petitioner and all keeping this in view the Tribunal had discharged the liability as on to the petitioner in the appeal. It is also submitted that the appeal before the Tribunal has attained finality and prayed for allowing the Writ Petition. 7. Learned Standing counsel for the respondent submits that as per Section 60 of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, the surcharge proceedings and enquiry proceedings are different and distinct and that they do not overlap. Learned counsel also submits that the role of the petitioner as a Manager is wider when compared to the role of the Secretary or Supervisor. The petitioner ought to have been more responsible insofar as disbursing of loans is concerned and that the petitioner failed to discharge her duty as a Manger. It is also submitted that there was a clear violation of the procedure laid down by the Bank insofar as disbursement of loans is concerned. The petitioner ought to have been more responsible insofar as disbursing of loans is concerned and that the petitioner failed to discharge her duty as a Manger. It is also submitted that there was a clear violation of the procedure laid down by the Bank insofar as disbursement of loans is concerned. As such, prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 8. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and perusal of record. It is evident that the petitioner was charged of having misappropriated funds of the respondent Bank by disbursing loans in the name of the deceased persons. The findings in the surcharge order dated 20.01.2004 would indicate that the inspecting officer in the cross-examination has admitted that the petitioner did not commit any misappropriation and that the surcharge action is recommended for dereliction of duties only. He further admitted that there was no willful dereliction of duties on the part of the petitioner. It is categorically stated that the Ex-secretary and Ex-supervisors have mislead the petitioner in disbursement of the loans. It is also observed that the petitioner acted in good faith and reposing confidence on her colleagues at the branch, had disbursed the loans. It is not disputed by the respondent that the surcharge order is set aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned and that the same has also attained finality. Considering the same, the punishment imposed on the petitioner scaling down her pay to the minimum in the cadre would be grossly disproponiate to the charges framed against the petitioner. It is also categorically stated that the respondent has accepted the order of the Tribunal. Having implemented the order of the Tribunal the respondent cannot punish the petitioner for no fault of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondent to refixing the pay of the petitioner and to disburse the amount due payable to the petitioner within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.