The judgment and order dated 4.5.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in WP ( C) No. 49 of 2008 is under challenge in this appeal.

2. By this impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 11.7.2007 passed by the appointing author­ity, i.e. General Manager, Network-I, SBI, whereby the delinquent/respondent was dis­missed from service. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, the disciplinary/appointing authority has preferred this appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned Sr. counsel for the appellants and Mr. SN Meitei, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The disciplinary enquiry was initiated in the year 2005. The respondent herein was suspended from service vide order dated 19.12.2005. Thereafter formal charges were framed on 11.8.2006. The articles of charges relate to the period of 18.8.2005 to 19.12.2005. The allegations and charges are reproduced below:

"Statement of imputation of lapses against Shri Lalhmachhu-ana, JMGS-I, when he was posted as Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Tawipui South Branch during the period 18.08.2005 to 19.12.2005.

While you were working as Branch Man­ager at our Tawipui South Branch (SAB) during the period 18.08.2005 to 19.12.2005, the follow­ing lapses/irregularities have been observed on your part:

Allegation-I

It is alleged that while you were posted as Branch Manager at our Tawipui South Branch during the period from 18.08.2005 to 19.12.2005, you were absconding from your duties from 13.12.2005 to 16.12.2005 without any informa­tion either to the Regional Office or to the Branch staff. As a result of your absence the Branch could not function for those days causing a business loss and damage of the image of the Bank to the public.

Allegation-II

You misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lache Branch fifty thousand) only from the cash balance of the Branch and there was a shortage of Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash balance from 13.12.2005 to 18.12.2005.

Allegation-III

You claimed reimbursement for an amount of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only as conveyance bill incurred for going to Lawngtlai Branch with UCP for completion of EOD/SOD for 12.12.2005 whereas the EOD/SOD/was done successfully at the Branch on the day itself by 6.00PM.

Allegation-IV

You allowed the Branch messenger to oper­ate the cash vault and to take out money in the evening of 12-12-2005 after completion of the EOD for 12-12-2005 and closure of cash.

Allegation-V

You were drunk during the office hours on 12.12.2005 hampering the day's work and dam­aging the image of the Bank."

5. The charges were denied by the delin­quent in toto by way of submitting his show cause reply. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed and a regular domestic enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry only two wit­nesses were examined by the department, out of the four witnesses proposed to be exam­ined. After the enquiry the report was submitted on 6.2.2007. As per the enquiry re­port only charge No. 1 was partially proved; charge Nos. 4 and 5 proved; whereas charge Nos. 2 and 3 could not be established. However, the disciplinary authority did not com­pletely agree to the enquiry report and took a different view that charge No. 1 and 2 stood proved. The decision of the disciplinary au­thority was communicated to the delinquent without affording any opportunity of hearing before upsetting the enquiry officer's report. On the basis of disciplinary authority's new findings the delinquent was dismissed from service by the appointing authority.

6. The aforesaid order of the appointing authority was challenged by the delinquent in the writ petition. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of punishment in the following terms:

"21. The respondent authorities are directed to place the writ petitioner in WP (C) No.46 of 2008 in the post earlier held by him immediately preceding the holding of the departmen