In view of the interdependency and commonality of the questions involved, both these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

2. Heard Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi and Sri Venkateswarlu Posani and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and also Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, representing the parties in both these writ petitions.

3. P.V.S. Ramabrahmam, writ petitioner in W.P.No.7959 of 2008 prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay gratuity amount of Rs.2,81 ,375/- to the said writ petitioner along with interest at 12% with effect from 31.8.2002 and pass such other suitable orders.

4. The said writ petitioner is the second respondent in W.P.No.27578 of 2008. The Punadipadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, third respondent in W.P.No.7959 of 2008, is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.27578 of 2008. The said writ petition was filed praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to the orders in O.A.No.70 of 2004 on the file of A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada, dated 08.12.2006, and quash the same and pass such other suitable orders.

5. In W.P.No.7959 of 2008, on 28.4.2008, Rule Nisi was issued and in W.P.M.P. No.1 0473 of 2008 the following order was made.

"It is stated that the third respondent has been served with notice and he did not choose to enter appearance.

When the petitioner was in service, surcharge proceedings were initiated against him and others and he was jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,81,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A.No.70 of 2004 in A.P., cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada. Through its judgment, dated 08.12.2006, the Tribunal had set aside the surcharge order against the petitioner. When the petitioner approached the second respondent for payment of gratuity a memo, dated 24.01.2008, was issued stating that a sum of RS.2,81,000/- was paid to the third respondent-society ,towards surcharge amount. Since the order of surcharge was set aside, the third respondent-society would be under obligation to pay the amount to the petitioner.

Hence, there shall be interim direction to the third respondent-society to release a sum of Rs.2,81,000/-, provided there are no orders of stay as regards the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.70 of 2004."

6. In W.P.No.27578 of 2008 this Court issued Rule Nisi on 18.12.2008 and in W.P.M.P. No.36140 of 2008 interim suspension had been granted on the said date.

7. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.7959 of 2008, who is the second respondent in W.P.No.27578 of 2008, being aggrieved of the interim suspension granted in W.P.M.P.No.36140 of 2008 in W.P.No.27578 of 2008 filed W.V.M.P.No.1278 of 2009 praying for vacation of the said order. When the said application was taken up for hearing, the counsel on record in both the writ petitions made submissions in elaboration and also further made a request for final disposal of these writ petitions and, hence, these writ petitions are being disposed of finally.

8. Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner in W.P.No.27578 of 2008 made elaborate submissions taking this Court through the contents of the order under challenge in the said writ petition and further had drawn the attention of this court to different provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that in the light of the clear evidence available on record, the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal at Vijayawada (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Tribunal" for the purpose of convenience) having recorded clear findings relating to the recklessness and negligence, totally erred in coming to the conclusion that the same would not amount to wilful negligence. The learned counsel also pointed out to the proceedings relating to surcharge inquiry and also the findings recorded by the Tribunal at paras 42, 43, 46 and 51. The lea