Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the order dated 9th May, 1995 (Annexure 12) passed by the Disciplinary authority imposing punishment of "dismissal without notice" against him in terms of paragraph 521 (5) (a) of Sastry Award as retained by desai Award as well as the order dated 16th October, 1995 (Annexure 14)passed by the Appellate Authority agreeing with the decision taken by the disciplinary Authority and thereby rejecting his appeal. 2. The petitioner was in the service of the State Bank Of India (herein after referred to as the Bank ). It is alleged that while working as Cashier at its Islampur Branch, he indulged in certain acts of misconduct and misappropriation of amount in various deposits during his posting, for which he was placed under suspension and later a disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against him. The enquiry commenced on 16-9-1993 and concluded on 26-8-1994. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 26-11-1994, vide annexure 9, in which he found the first charge against the petitioner as proved and with the proof of 1st charge, the 2nd charge which is for acceptance of the deposit beyond the prescribed limit for deposit over Teller Counter in contravention of the rule relating to cash receipts at the Teller Counter has also been found to have been automatically stands proved. 3. The Assistant General Manager (III) of the Zonal Office of the Bank at patna-Disciplinary Authority, vide Annexure 10, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and found the charge proved beyond doubt that while working at the Teller Counter at Islam-pur Branch, the petitioner had pocketed rs.4,000/- on 4-3-1992 deposited by shri Chandra Bhushan Prasad for credit into his S. B. Account No.2/3375 by making a false entry into his pass book and concurring with the findings, he proposed to inflict with the aforementioned punishment and called upon the petitioner to show cause within 10 days from the date of receipt of the memorandum as to why the said proposed punishment be not awarded to him. 4. The petitioner submitted his show cause, vide Annexure 11, and on consideration of the same, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order, contained in Annexure 12. 4. The petitioner submitted his show cause, vide Annexure 11, and on consideration of the same, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order, contained in Annexure 12. The petitioner, vide Annexure 13, preferred appeal against the same before the Appellate Authority, namely, the Deputy general Manager of the Bank, which has been rejected vide impugned order contained in Annexure 14. 5. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had received a cash deposit of Rs.4,000/- but instead of accounting for the same in the Banks books, he pocketed the same after making a fictitious credit entry in his pass book and inflating the balance in his own handwriting and authenticating the same. It was further alleged that he had issued acknowledgment through counterfoil of the receipt of Rs.4,000/- and handed over both the pass book and the counterfoil duly authenticated to the depositor to assure him that the money had actually been credited in his account. It was also alleged that his acceptance of Rs.4,000/- at the Teller counter is itself in contravention of the rule relating to cash receipts at the teller Counter which provides for maximum receipt of Rs.3,000/- only. 6. During the course of enquiry, the witnesses were examined and the documents were also exhibited by the prosecution in support of the charges. An opinion was also sought for from the handwriting Expert with regard to the handwriting and the signature on the pass book and also on the counterfoil issued to the depositor. 7. Dr. Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the signature of the petitioner was not legally proved and as such the order of his dismissal is illegal and unsustainable inasmuch as the petitioner was denied of the opportunity of examining the Handwriting Expert as he was not examined as a witness on behalf of the prosecution besides that the original of the opinion of the Handwriting Expert was not produced at the enquiry. It was further submitted by him that the entire report of the Enquiry Officer is based on mere suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in the departmental proceeding and the order of the Disciplinary Authority is also wholly cryptic, non-speaking and without application of mind. In the last it was submitted by Dr. Jha that in any event the punishment is disproportionate and excessive. 8. Mr. In the last it was submitted by Dr. Jha that in any event the punishment is disproportionate and excessive. 8. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that there was no infirmity in conducting of the departmental enquiry nor there is any illegality or impropriety in the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary authority and also confirmed by the appellate Authority. It was further submitted by him that in view of the seriousness of the charges which are found to have been proved, this Court should consider to refrain from interfering with the same or extend any sympathetic consideration inasmuch as it is difficult for the Bank to continue the petitioner in its employment when the charges of gross misconduct and misappropriation have been found proved by the Enquiry Officer. It was also submitted by him that the Enquiry Officer on consideration of the entire materials on record and being satisfied with the credibility of the evidence contained in the admitted documents has found the charges proved. As such, according to him, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 9. There appears to be substance in the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Bank. In fact, the petitioner never raised any doubt on the authenticity of the opinion of the Handwriting Expert while accepting it as prosecution exhibit. On repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to refer anything on the record of the case to show that any such objection was ever raised by the petitioner or he ever asked the prosecution to establish the authenticity by producing the maker of the documents before the enquiry. 10. It is by now well settled that the documents admitted need no proof. Once the entry made in the pass book and also in the counter-foil is not disputed by the petitioner and that the said exhibits were sent to the Handwriting expert as admitted documents, then the enquiry officer has rightly come to the conclusion that the delinquent has not spoken truth about his signature made in the same when he was cross-examined by the prosecution. Moreover, nothing specific has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that any due procedure has been violated. The Disciplinary Authority has agreed with the findings of the Enquiry officer and has imposed the punishment accordingly by the impugned order. Moreover, nothing specific has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that any due procedure has been violated. The Disciplinary Authority has agreed with the findings of the Enquiry officer and has imposed the punishment accordingly by the impugned order. The Supreme Court in the case of union of India V/s. Sardar Bahadur, reported in 1972 Lab. I. C.627 (S. C.)held that the standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and not to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. 11. It is well settled that the Disciplinary Authority is only required to refer to his own reasonings in the impugned order in case he differs with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thus, in my opinion, there is no substance in the other submission also of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Disciplinary Authority being a cryptic and non-speaking one is not sustainable. As regards the quantum of punishment, in my opinion, it has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the Bank that considering the nature of job performed by the petitioner and the charges proved against him do not warrant any interference in the same. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed, but without costs. Application Dismissed.