Hon’ble Vikram Nath, J.—This intra Court appeal, under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been filed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 21.7.1999 in Writ Petition No. 19020 of 1996 whereby the writ petition of the respondent has been allowed and the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority dated 7.7.1995 and 19.3.1996 respectively dismissing the petitioner from service have been quashed and it has been left open to the respondent to hold inquiry afresh, or from the stage before the submission of the inquiry report after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

2. The respondent Aneep Mehta was initially appointed as Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (appellant) in the year 1971. Subsequently he was promoted as Higher Grade Assistant (in short HGA) and continued to work with the appellant. According to the service conditions of the respondent he was entitled for leave transfer concession (in short referred as LTC) as provided in the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1960 (in short referred to as the 1960 Regulation). In the year 1992 the petitioner claimed advance and subsequently reimbursement of the remaining amount for LTC undertaken by him and his family from 16.5.1992 till 26.5.1992. The total amount claimed in the LTC claim form was Rs. 10,692/- (Rs. Ten thousand six hundred and ninety two only). The respondent had initially claimed advance of Rs. 8,500/- and upon return he submitted the LTC claim form and claimed the balance amount of Rs. 2,192/-. The journey as shown in the claim bill was for (i) 16.5.92-17.5.92 Allahabad to New Delhi, (ii) 19.5.92-25.5.92 New Delhi to Jammu Tavi, (iii) 22.5.92-23.5.92 Jammu Tavi to Dehradun, (iv) 24.5.92 Dehradun to Meerut city and (v) 25.5.92 to 26.5.92 Meerut city to Allahabad. All the legs of the journey were undertaken in II AC sleeper class.

3. Charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 4.3.1993 alleging that the LTC bill dated 6.6.1992 for the journey undertaken from 16.5.1992 to 26.5.1992 were actually not undertaken and a false claim has been raised in order to make wrongful gains. The respondent submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and denied the charges. In the meantime, the wife of the respondent had died and therefore in his reply to the charge-sheet he mentioned that initially the details were not traceable, but after searching the belongings of his late wife he was able to get the ticket number which he mentioned in his reply. It was also mentioned that the ticket Numbers 72122-72127 mentioned were of the first class which were changed into II AC sleeper Class and also extended for further journey by ticket No. 02356 on the journey. The respondent also gave the details of his relatives at different places where he had stayed. He also mentioned in his reply that after reaching New Delhi where the family stayed for three days, in between he had to returned to Allahabad for urgent work on 17.5.92 and returned the same day and joined his family on 18.5.1992 for further journey. The inquiry continued and in the mean-time, the petitioner asked for certain document etc. After inquiry and verification from the railway authority regarding the details of the ticket mentioned by the respondent the inquiry officer submitted his report dated 13.5.1994 holding that the respondent was guilty of submitting a false bill as he had never undertaken any journey as alleged in the claim bill and therefore, having attempted to make wrongful gain from the Corporation is honesty and integrity had failed. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 26.10.94 proposing to award punishment of dismissal. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 17.12.94 to the disciplinary authority. However, the show cause submitted by the respondent did not find favour to the disciplinary authority and he passed the order of punishmen