JUDGMENT The appellant is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 31.01.2013 in Writ Petition No.2198/2012. 2. Heard the counsel for the appellant. 3. The undisputed facts in this appeal are as hereunder: The appellant was appointed as a Secretary in the 2nd respondent – bank in the year 1987. Since 23.10.2007 he is under suspension on the charges of misuse of funds and misappropriation. Challenging the order of suspension, the appellant raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act which application came to be rejected by the concerned authority on 11.11.2008 against which the appellant filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which appeal came to be allowed on 30.06.2011 remanding the matter to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies who had dismissed the dispute. When the application was filed under Section 71(3) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act to revoke the order of suspension and to pay full salary as subsistence allowance till the disciplinary proceedings are concluded, the same came to be allowed. Therefore, the bank filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.2198/13 contending that the order passed by the 1st respondent in directing the bank to pay 90% salary as subsistence allowance is erroneous to service conditions of the bank. 4. Learned Single Judge having examined the legal position, came to the conclusion that as per the service rules of the Grain Merchant Bank Cooperative Bank Limited, if an employee is kept under suspension, he is entitled to subsistence allowance equal to 50% of his salary or at such rate as is fixed by the Board from time to time. Accordingly, came to the conclusion that 90% of subsistence allowance allowed by the 1st respondent which is confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was erroneous and accordingly, writ petition came to be allowed. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not considering the hardship that is caused to the appellant in reducing the subsistence allowance from 90% to 50% since the disciplinary proceedings is being dragged on from 2007. Therefore, he submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error and requests this Court to allow the appeal. 6. Therefore, he submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error and requests this Court to allow the appeal. 6. Having heard the counsel for the appellant, the only point to be considered in this appeal is, “Whether the learned Single Judge has committed an error in reducing the subsistence allowance as ordered by the 1st respondent”? 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant being an employee of the 2nd respondent – bank, is bound by the service regulations of the bank. The service regulations are not challenged by the appellant before any authority as ultra vires. It is also not in dispute as per the service regulations the appellant is receiving subsistence allowance of 50%. If it is so, in this background, if the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and setaside the order of the 1st respondent, this Court cannot hold that an error is committed by the learned Single Judge in reducing the subsistence allowance from 90% to 50%. 8. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.