THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.2925 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order 09.12.2002 in O.A.No.78 of 2000 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Society, Vijayawada, confirming the order passed by the third respondent dated 31.12.1993 in Rc.No.427/92-C. The petitioner joined as a Supervisor in the District Cooperative Central Bank, Eluru, in the year 1971. During the year 1986-87, at a time he was the Supervisor for nine cooperative societies and was also person incharge for four cooperative societies. Subsequently, alleging misappropriation of amount in G.Kothapalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society during the year 1986-87, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer filed a report dated 30.04.1993. Basing on the said enquiry report, a showcause notice dated 15.06.1993 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his explanation. However, without considering the explanation, a surcharge order dated 31.12.1993 was passed by the third respondent fixing the liability to a tune of Rs.80,008.99ps against the petitioner and some others. Against the said surcharge order, the petitioner preferred O.A.No.78 of 2000 on the file of the first respondent, but the same was dismissed on 09.12.2002. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. A perusal of the record shows that it was only after conducting an enquiry and after giving opportunity to the petitioner and the officers concerned, the surcharge order was passed. Therefore, no lacunae could be attributed to the said order. Apart from that, the plea of the petitioner that since he was the supervisor for nine cooperative societies and was incharge of four cooperative societies at the relevant point of time, he used to sign the records totally depending on the secretaries of the societies even in regard to financial transactions, cannot be accepted. Being a responsible officer, it is his duty to verify before signing any document. As rightly observed by the Tribunal when stock worth Rs.80,008.99ps was missing, the petitioner along with the officers concerned ought to have given a police complaint and their conduct in not doing so, gives rise to draw an adverse inference against them. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I see no error apparent on the face of record to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of Certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.V. RAMANA, J 12th August, 2010 GHN