Judgment 1. Sumitra Devi along with her four sons has filed the present letters patent appeal. It needs to be explained thta the writ petition had been filed by the husband Heera Prasad. He died during the pendency of the petition. Sumitra Devi had herself substituted in lieu of her husband upon the latters death. 2. The occasion to file the writ petition was to impugn the departmental proceedings which had been taken out by the State Bank of India. The petitioner Heera Prasad faced several serious charges which could be termed as grave financial irregularities. The learned judge has summed up some of these charges in his order dated 28 October 2002. These are (a) granting loan to large number of persons without proper documentation (b) without verifying credit worthiness of the persons to whom loan had been granted and (c) arising out of these transactions obtaining illegal gratification. 3. The inquiry had concluded. The misdemeanor of the petitioner Heera Prasad was established. These are matters of financial irregularities. The court is of the view that his widow cannot go into the aspects of the inquiry to undo what was established. 4. The court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned judge where an attempt to have the inquiry quashed has failed. 5. Dismissed.