JUDGMENT

Dharmesh Sharma, J. The appellant has instituted this `Letters Patent Appeal' [LPA] in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Lahore, as applicable to the Delhi High Court, read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Courts Act, 1996, directed against the impugned order dated 26 March 2021, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby Writ Petition filed by him bearing WP(C) No. 7401/2017 against the respondents challenging his dismissal from service by the Disciplinary Authority [DA] was dismissed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. The appellant was appointed to the post of Probationary Officer in the respondent No. 1 Bank on 09 July 1984. He was posted as Chief Manager at South Extension Branch of the Bank, at Delhi in June, 2011. The appellant was served with a memorandum by the Zonal Manager, Zonal Office dated 27 September 2013 alleging certain acts of omissions and commissions committed by him while discharging his duties at the South Extension Branch and also at the Khan Market Branch, to which a reply was filed by him dated 14 October 2013. Vide letter dated 22 October 2013, his reply was not found to be satisfactory and disciplinary action was initiated against him, simultaneously placing him under suspension vide memo dated 26 October 2013 which was followed by a charge-sheet dated 11 December 2013 issued by the Senior Regional Manager acting as the DA. The charge-sheet set out 17 articles of charge [A-4] but later by way of an addendum dated 21 March 2014, 10 additional charges were added to the existing articles of charge [A-5]. A Presenting Officer [PO] was appointed vide order dated 29 March 2014 and inquiry proceedings were initiated against the appellant, which commenced on 06 May 2014 and was concluded on 25 November 2014. Ultimately after considering the written briefs submitted by the petitioner as also the PO, an inquiry report dated 07 January 2015 was culminated. Suffice to state that out of 17 charges that formed part of the charge-sheet dated 11 December 2013, the Inquiry Authority held that the charges 1, 3, 6, 9 to 13 and 15 were proved whereas charges 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 16 and 17 were not proved, whereas out of 10 charges that constituted part of the addendum to the memorandum dated 21 March 2014, three charges were held to be proved against him.

3. The DA on 13/19 January 2015, addressed a disagreement note to the appellant concurring with all the findings of the Inquiry Authority except for charge Nos. 2, 4 and 17 inter alia also assigning reasons for disagreement. The appellant was afforded an opportunity to submit his written submissions within 7 days thereof, which were submitted by the petitioner on 17 February 2015, whereby the petitioner refuted the findings of the Inquiry Authority on various counts. The DA on observing the entire record of the inquiry proceedings vide order dated 27 March 2015 held that charges 1 to 4 and 6 were fully proved whereas charge No. 7 was partly