Judgment 1. This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order of March 13, 2003: Umesh Narayan Ambastha V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. The petitioner-appellant was an employee of the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited. At the close of his retirement, it was found that there were irregularities in matters of finances and the manner in which loans had been advanced. Notwithstanding that the petitioner-appellant had retired departmental proceedings were initiated. 2. The contention of the petitioner-appellant is that after retirement he enjoys immunity from the departmental proceedings and the inquiry and the principal of the Bihar Pension Rules cannot be resorted to in making inquiries against him. On this the learned Judge was of the opinion that should any order be passed finally in the departmental proceedings then he has a statutory remedy of appeal which would lie before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. On the ground that a clear cut alternate remedy was available, the learned Judge did not issue notice on the petition. 3. This letters patent appeal has been filed and learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that an alternate remedy is no bar and he is entitled to a writ as of right regard being had to the circumstances that the petitioner has retired and the regulations cannot be invoked to proceed against him departmentally. The allegations against the petitioner-appellant are about financial irregularities. More than this, the Court cannot comment. Indeed, these are fiscal matters which need to be inquired. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant desires the Court to notice that coining to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is a petition of right. The Court is afraid that it cannot lend itself to such an interpretation. The prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court is the discretion of the High Court and it is not a petition of right. In the present case, there are allegations against the petitioner-appellant. More so the petitioner-appellant has been an employee of the Bank and he is answerable for public monies? Whatever be the result of the inquiry, should it be against the petitioner-appellant then a remedy is available and he may resort to that remedy. 5. This appeal is misconceived. The learned Judge has committed no error in dismissing the writ petition. 6. Dismissed.