S. Muralidhar, J.

This appeal is directed against an order dated 27th April, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant's writ petition being W.P.(C) No.17579/2006 in which he had challenged, inter alia, an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority ("DA") of the Bank of Baroda (Respondent No.1) dated 31st January, 2005 imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from service and the order dated 10th May, 2005 of the Appellate Authority ("AA"), affirming the dismissal order.

Background facts

2. The Appellant joined the bank on 26th February, 1973 and over the years earned consecutive promotions. On 30th September, 1992, he took over as Senior Branch Manager of the East of Kailash ("EOK") Branch in New Delhi. According to him, at that time the total net profit of the bank as a whole in the year 1992-93 was just Rs.8 crores. The EOK Branch was 16 years old with a business of Rs.14 crores and the profit was Rs. 25 lacs.

3. The Appellant remained in the Branch for two years and according to him during this period the profit of the EOK Branch increased four folds from Rs.25 lacs to Rs.108 lacs.

4. According to the Appellant, when he joined the EOK Branch on 30th September 1992, he realized that the General Ledger ("GL") Heads of the Branch were not balanced since 1985-86. There were huge "house-keeping arrears" in the branch. The Appellant, while increasing the business and profit of the bank, also undertook the job of completing the house-keeping arrears and balancing the accounts. Around this time, the bank had also commenced the computerization of the operations of the branch. This, according to the Appellant, added to the confusion.

5. According to the Appellant, he was working with a less number of staff during this time. He states that the staff crunch had become so severe that peons were handling clerical jobs and the officers were forced to manage counters and do clerical duties. On 22nd January 1993, the Appellant addressed a letter to the Regional Office pointing out that there was a severe shortage of staff and the regular clerks were not available and that their tasks were being performed by the officers and peons. The computers received in the Savings Department could not be started due to non-availability of a clerk to run it.

6. According to the Appellant, during this time he received several commendations letters, including the letter dated 6th April, 1993 from the Regional Manager and letter dated 27th July, 1993, the Head of Northern Zone.

7. In August, 1994, the Appellant was transferred from the EOK Branch. Thereafter, he continued to work in the bank for 11 years in various positions. In 1995, he was promoted as Chief Manager. He received a commendation letter on 16th October, 1996 from the Zonal Office.

8. In 1997, an explanation was sought from the Appellant in respect of a clerical mistake in the account of one Mr Naveen Mehta in the EOK Branch during the time when he was a Senior Branch Manager there. The Appellant had offered a written explanation in the form of a statement on 18th September, 1997. The gist of the said statement, on the basis of his recollection, was that when he took down the outstanding SDRs, he found that there was Rs.12.50 lacs in surplus and this was transferred to the GL FDR. Thereafter the FDRs were totalled and again the GL was found in excess by about Rs. 2 lacs. His explanation was as under:

"SB and CA balances were brought to as near as possible with GL balances and then fed in computers. Differences if any were adjusted in Dormant a/cs and differences detected thereafter were also adjusted through dormant a/cs with the hope that when all mistakes are rectified, dormant a/c will automatically be balanced, fill such time dormant a/'c was treated as like differences a/cs."

9. After one year it was found that Rs.1.41 lacs was surplus in GL FDR lying in different accounts and at that time the dormant account in the SB was short by about Rs.1 lac. The Appellant ex