1. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No.18586/2002, allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned orders, the respondent-bank therein has filed the present appeal.

2. The writ petitioner joined the service of the bank on 04.02.1985 in the cadre Junior Management Grade Scale-I. While he was working as an Assistant Manager at Cudappa Branch, a show-cause notice was issued to him on allegations of misconduct. He submitted his reply denying the same. A charge-sheet was issued. He replied to the same. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding him guilty of the charges. A second show-cause notice was issued. The writ petitioner replied to the same, which was not accepted and he was imposed with a penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal which was dismissed.

4. Hence, he filed the instant writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority and to direct the respondent-bank to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits.

5. On contest, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders. It was also directed that the petitioner was entitled for a cost of Rs.10,000/- from the respondent-bank. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-bank has filed this appeal.

6. Shri.Abilash Raju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-bank contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in holding that the bank did not consider the contentions raised by the employee. That there is an error committed by the bank in arriving at a decision, without appreciating the material on record. The arbitrary decision arrived, at which were incorporated in the reasoned orders drawn later, was not justified. Therefore, he pleads that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set-aside.

7. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others vs. S.N. Goyal, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2594, with reference to para-19, to contend that when a quasi-judicial authority passes an order and the same is noted in the office file, nothing prevents the authority from correcting it or altering it later for valid reasons. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellate Authority became funtus officio when it signs the note. Therefore, even though the order passed by the Appellate Authority is on a subsequent date than the date on which the appeal was dismissed, the same cannot be held against the bank. That this is a normal procedure adopted by this bank and hence it cannot be faulted.

8. On the other hand, Shri.M.Nagaprasanna, learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order. He contends that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record. That the entire records were gone into by the learned Single Judge before setting aside the impugned orders. That glaring errors were noticed by the learned Single Judge and that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that rejecting an appeal and thereafter writing a detailed judgment on the decision arrived at, is opposed to law and that such an order is unsustainable. That the judgment relied upon by the appellants are not applicable to the case hand. Hence, he pleads that the appeal to be dismissed by confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

9. Heard learned counsels.

10. The learned Single Judge while considering the contentions as well as the material on record noted that on 30.08.2001, the Inquiring Authority examined the writ petitioner. That four questions had been asked which were not in conformity with Rule-6(17) of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. That the incriminating circumstances against the writ petitioner were not disclosed. Therefo