ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) ON a surprise checking it was found that the writ petitioner while working as Cash Clerk had done several irregularities in disbursement of various payment including L. T. C. payment to the co-workers belonging to the respondent company. There had been a preliminary investigation wherefrom it appears that the petitioner put his thumb impression as and by way of purported receipt of money by the fellow workers and thereby committed illegalities with mala fide intention to defraud the co- workers. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally and suffered the order of dismissal from service. ( 2 ) MR. Kalyan Bandopadhyay (Mr. Kishore Dutta appearing with him) learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the enquiry report which was made basis of the final order was perverse in view of wrong appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. ( 3 ) AFTER elaborate argument Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the said enquiry report. According to him when there had been a distinctive charge of defrauding the co-workers, out of 8 persons only 2 of them were produced by the prosecution. The said two workers alleged that they got lesser payment. Such evidence of the said workers were not backed up by any evidence including pay cards. Hence, the charge of defrauding the co-workers was not proved. On the issue of thumb impression Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned counsel, submits that since there had been a heavy rush and since the petitioner was not a regular employee of the Cash department, there might have been some irregularities. According to him, irregularities, if any, without any proper evidence of fraud does not warrant an order of dismissal from service and as such the punishment so awarded to the petitioner was disproportionate to the charges brought and proved against the writ petitioner. ( 4 ) MR. R. N. Majumder. learned counsel appearing for the respondent authority, has drawn my attention to the said enquiry report and submitted that even if the issue of fraud was not proved before the enquiry officer the issue of putting thumb impression had been admitted by the delinquent. Such admission itself is sufficient enough to justify the order of dismissal. ( 5 ) MR. learned counsel appearing for the respondent authority, has drawn my attention to the said enquiry report and submitted that even if the issue of fraud was not proved before the enquiry officer the issue of putting thumb impression had been admitted by the delinquent. Such admission itself is sufficient enough to justify the order of dismissal. ( 5 ) MR. Majumder, learned counsel, in support of his contention has relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court the case of R. N. Singh v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. reported in 2002 (2) Cal HN 161. ( 6 ) TO decide the issue let me first quote the charge which was brought against the petitioner. "that, during surprise checking by some authorities of the Management on 9/01/1992 regarding payment of L. T. C. and l. L. T. C. to the employees of Wage-board of Madhujore Colliery a few reference or irregularities was noted. It is further alleged in the said charge sheet that on thorough examination it was established that Sri Ajit Kumar Ghanty falsified official documents of the company, violated norms and procedures of payment and suppressed fact of the said violation with mala fide intention of defrauding fellow workers to whom he was assigned to disburse payment by putting his right index against L. T. C. payment in respect of Rambrich Bin and also impressed his right thumb against the L. T. C. payment of seven other persons in order to pass them as L. T. C. of the 8 (eight) workers given as token for their having received the payment. By said conducts on the part of Sri Ajit Kumar Ghanty, he is alleged to have committed misconduct as per Clause 17 (i) (a) of the Model Standing Orders applicable to the establishment. " ( 7 ) ON perusal of the aforesaid charge the following facts would reveal: (I) On 9/01/1992 there had been a surprise checking where the irregularities were found. (ii) On a thorough examination it was found that the delinquent falsified the official documents of the company and violated the norms and procedure of payment. (iii) Such violation and/or irregularities were suppressed by the delinquent. (iv) There had been mala fide intention of defrauding the fellow workers by putting thumb impression on their behalf. (ii) On a thorough examination it was found that the delinquent falsified the official documents of the company and violated the norms and procedure of payment. (iii) Such violation and/or irregularities were suppressed by the delinquent. (iv) There had been mala fide intention of defrauding the fellow workers by putting thumb impression on their behalf. ( 8 ) THE issue of putting thumb impression was an admitted fact as would appear from the enquiry report. In any event, hand writing expert verified the thumb impression and gave his opinion that the thumb impressions put against those persons were of the delinquent. On the issue of defrauding the co-workers, the said part of the charge was not properly proved and the enquiry officer very rightly observed as follows:"since Management did not lead the evidence of 6 (six) other persons. I restrain (sic) myself from making any observation/ opinion as to the aspect of any less payment made to them, if any, but in this case also, it is an admitted position that L. T. I's of other 6 (six) persons were not impressed by Sri. A. K. Ghanty, Clerk while making payment as admitted by him. " ( 9 ) THE other part of the charge has been proved as would appear from the said enquiry report and Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned counsel, to such extent has not been able to assail the same. "the question now remains whether the charge so proved against the petitioner did warrant the order of dismissal. In my view, had there been a case of irregularity or unintentional mistake committed by the petitioner, the submission of the petitioner on this issue could have been justified. Putting thumb impression on behalf of somebody else cannot be said to be mistake or unintentional or a procedural irregularity. It is true that two workers' who came to depose before the enquiry officer did not produce their pay cards to justify their claim for short payment. If they can prove the same before the appropriate authority, they will have a cause of action against the petitioner himself. That is not the subject matter here. ( 10 ) SO far as the relationship between the writ petitioner and the respondent is concerned, since the petitioner while discharging his duty in his official capacity had put his thumb impression on behalf of somebody else and thereby falsified the records of the respondent. That is not the subject matter here. ( 10 ) SO far as the relationship between the writ petitioner and the respondent is concerned, since the petitioner while discharging his duty in his official capacity had put his thumb impression on behalf of somebody else and thereby falsified the records of the respondent. Such fact, by itself, in my opinion, would justify the order of dismissal. Hence, the submission with regard to disproportionate punishment made by the petitioner is not tenable. ( 11 ) THE writ petition thus fails and is hereby dismissed. ( 12 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. ( 13 ) URGENT Xerox certified copy will be given to the parties, if applied for.