expenditure is genuine and failed to produce bills/vouchers for the said amount and that the petitioner, being the joint signatory, is equally responsible for proper maintenance of vouchers for the amounts paid from the funds of the bank, passed the surcharge order dated 31.08.2001, under Section 60 of the Act, making the petitioner and the 3rd respondent jointly and severally liable for payment of Rs.30,000/- to Kranthi Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, with interest @ 18% per annum from 17.01.1996 till the date of realization of the entire amount. Subsequently, another show-cause notice, under Section 21 AA (2) of the Act, was issued to the petitioner on 24.09.2001 by the 2nd respondent, and after receiving his explanation, the 2nd respondent passed another order dated 26.11.2001, declaring that the petitioner was ceased to be the member of the Board of Directors of the bank. The petitioner preferred C.T.A.No.194 of 2001 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, 1st respondent herein, questioning the surcharge order dated 31.08.2001 and also preferred C.T.A.No.19 of 2002 questioning his disqualification as a member of the Board of Directors of the bank. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that he is not responsible for the alleged misappropriation and even the 3rd respondent paid the entire surcharge amount admitting the total liability and, as such, the petitioner cannot be surcharged and disqualified as a member of the Board of Directors of the bank. The Tribunal, after a detailed consideration of the matter, holding that the reasons assigned by the 2nd respondent for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were jointly and severally liable to pay the surcharge amount of Rs.30,000/- are convincing and trustworthy and though the surcharge amount was stated to have been paid by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner cannot be given clean chit and he cannot escape disqualification, dismissed both the appeals on 05.09.2005, by
