ORDER : Heard Sri Krishnappa N.R, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Vaheeda, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 and Sri Ravindranath M, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Caveator. 2. Petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru rendered in IA.No.1 seeking for stay of operation and execution of the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 28.09.2018 in Dispute No.03/201718 ordered in favour of the respondent No.2 herein and thereby, setting aside the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the order of dismissal passed by Petitioner Society against respondent No.2. 3. Facts in brief are that the respondent No.2 was placed under suspension and imputation of charges issued. There were 10 charges framed. After the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer rendered a finding that seven out of ten charges i.e., Charges at Sl.Nos.1, 2 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 were proved and charges at Sl.Nos.4, 8 and 10 were not proved. Charges that were held to be proved include the charges of misappropriation of funds of the Petitioner Society, interpolating the resolution passed by the Society, carrying away the books of accounts and audit reports and storing them at her residence, furnishing false information to the Board, misleading the members of the Board and behaving in an unprofessional manner with the members of the Milk Union. 4. It is contended that based on the charge report, enquiry was held and punishment of dismissal from the service was imposed. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 approached respondent No.1 alleging that the order is passed without conducting any enquiry and without providing an opportunity as is mandated under Rule 31 (4)(a) of KCS Rules, 1960 and thereupon the first respondent proceeded to pass the award solely on the ground that the non payment of the subsistence allowance had vitiated the enquiry and findings. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 5. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal admitted the matter and rejected the IA No.1 solely on the ground of nonpayment of subsistence allowance and also by placing reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in 1999 AIR (SC) 1416. Being aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner Society is before this Court. 6. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in 1999 AIR (SC) 1416. Being aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner Society is before this Court. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner Society had offered to deposit the subsistence allowance before Appellate Tribunal and Registrar. But the same was not permitted. He further submits that respondent No.1 had committed a fundamental error in not recording the evidence which is mandatory under the rules, but the same is not complied. He would submit that the order of the Appellate Tribunal rejecting the IA stands vitiated by non-application of mind as the Appellate Tribunal did not even look into the rulings relied upon by the appellants/petitioners herein and after placing reliance of the judgment in the case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, the Tribunal was pleased to reject the application. 7. It is contended that respondent No.2 has been found guilty of the charges and Appellate Tribunal and respondent No.1 failed to appreciate the gravity of the charges that stood proved in the domestic enquiry. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the rulings of this Court rendered in the case of Maratha Mandal Vs. Chandrakant Baburao Kadam and others in WP.No.66209/2010, dated 17.11.2015, on the issue of consequences following the non payment of subsistence allowance this Court has held that the ruling rendered in the case of Indra Bhanu Gaur V/s. Committee, Management of M.M.Decree college and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 248 has a binding effect as it has been rendered subsequent to the judgment rendered in Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another in paragraphs 9, 10 and 12 which reads as follows: “9. This judgment was, however, set aside by the Division Bench on 17th September, 1997 in a letters patent appeal filed by the respondents. It is this judgment which is under appeal before us. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondents having themselves launched the criminal case were not justified in proceeding with the departmental inquiry which was based on the same set of facts and ought to have stayed those proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. It is this judgment which is under appeal before us. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondents having themselves launched the criminal case were not justified in proceeding with the departmental inquiry which was based on the same set of facts and ought to have stayed those proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. Since the basis of action in both the cases, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case, was the raid conducted by the Superintendent of Police at the residence of the appellant from where a recovery was also allegedly made, the departmental proceedings were liable to be stayed as the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings were common. In these circumstances, the appellant, it is contended, was justified in requesting the respondents to stay the departmental proceedings and on the refusal of the respondents to stay the proceedings, the appellant was justified in not participating in those proceedings as his defence was likely to be prejudiced. It is also contended that the appellant was ill and for that reason also the departmental proceedings ought to have been stayed till he had completely recovered. It is also submitted that the appellant who had been placed under suspension was not being paid the Subsistence Allowance with the result that he fell into serious financial difficulties and could not undertake any journey from his hometown in Kerala to Kolar Gold Fields in Karnataka for participating in the departmental proceedings. The Division Bench, it is contended, was not justified in interfering with the judgment passed by the Single Judge who had found it as a positive fact that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the cases was common. 12. This question, as observed earlier, is of a perennial nature and has arisen more often than not in spite of the judicial pronouncements, specially by this Court, having settled the question and provided the answer. Still, the problem is raised either by the employer or by the employee in one or the other form. In the instance case, the order of dismissal had already been passed before the decision of the criminal case which ultimately resulted in the acquittal of the appellant. Still, the problem is raised either by the employer or by the employee in one or the other form. In the instance case, the order of dismissal had already been passed before the decision of the criminal case which ultimately resulted in the acquittal of the appellant. Whether the acquittal coupled with other circumstances, specially ex parte proceedings, of the case, will have the effect of vitiating the departmental proceedings or the order of dismissal passed against the appellant, is the question which is to be considered in this appeal.” 9. It is submitted that the said ruling was cited before the KAT and the Appellate Tribunal has failed to even to refer to it. It is submitted that ruling of this Court rendered in WP.No.32778/1994 decided on 16.01.1997 which refers to the mandatory nature of the provisions of Rule 31 (7)(a) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1959 with regard to the requirement to record the evidence was also placed before the Appellate Tribunal but the same has not been looked into and hence, the impugned order stands vitiated by non application of mind. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for caveator would submit that the Appellate Tribunal was right in rejecting the application as it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that denial of subsistence allowance amounts to violation of fundamental rights. Be that as it may, the Appellate Tribunal has fallen in error in not considering the ruling relied upon by the appellant/petitioner herein. It was incumbent upon the Appellate Tribunal and it is bound to look into the same and set out reasons and thereafter pass orders. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent would fairly admit that the said ruling were placed before the Appellate Tribunal and hence in the present case the order impugned is rendered a non speaking order. Hence, the impugned order is required to be set aside. Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed. Matter is remitted back to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Order dated 19.11.2018 passed on IA.No.1 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for considering afresh and pass orders after looking into the rulings relied upon by the parties. In the event the petitioner-appellant files an application for deposit of any amount the same also shall be considered in accordance with law. The writ petitions stand ordered accordingly.