ORDER Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14th March 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 1820 of 2005, the heirs and legal representatives of the original writ petitioner one Dr. Brahamdeo Prasad Singh have preferred this Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The above mentioned Dr. Brahamdeo Prasad Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “delinquent”) was, at the relevant time, Deputy Director in the Directorate of Health, State of Bihar. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the charge that while serving as Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer and Superintendent of Purnea Sadar Hospital, District- Purnea, he had committed financial irregularity in respect of placing order of medicines to the extent of more than Rs. 76 lacs with the medical supply Depot, Kolkota. Pursuant to the said enquiry, the enquiry officer made a report on 16th March 2002. According to the enquiry officer, the imputation of charge made against the delinquent was partially proved. The enquiry officer opined that the delinquent received supply of medicines more than the available allotment and incurred expenditure. Thus, he acted in violation of Financial Rules. However, the extent of purchase order placed by the delinquent could not be ascertained. In view of the aforesaid finding of guilt recorded against the delinquent, by order dated 16th September 2004 made by the State Government, the delinquent was dismissed from service. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the delinquent filed above C.W.J.C. No. 1820 of 2005 under Article 226 of the Constitution. Pending the writ petition the delinquent passed away. The appellants were substituted as the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased delinquent. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Jagannath Singh has appeared for the appellants. He has strenuously urged that the order of dismissal from service is not commensurate to the guilt proved against the delinquent. He has submitted that since the imputation of charge was partially proved, the delinquent could not have been visited with the extreme penalty for dismissal from service. Mr. Singh has also submitted that in course of enquiry, no witness was examined. The delinquent, therefore, had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. 5. We have perused the records. It may be noted that the allegation against the delinquent was that of financial irregularity. The said allegation has been proved in the departmental proceeding. Mr. Singh has also submitted that in course of enquiry, no witness was examined. The delinquent, therefore, had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. 5. We have perused the records. It may be noted that the allegation against the delinquent was that of financial irregularity. The said allegation has been proved in the departmental proceeding. All that could not be proved was the extent of the involvement of the delinquent or the exact amount involved. Be that as it may, once the charge of financial irregularity was proved against the delinquent, the only punishment that could have justifiably been imposed upon the delinquent was dismissal from service. As to the witnesses, unless the department had examined any witness, the question of offering such witness for cross-examination by the delinquent would not arise. If at all the delinquent so desired he could have examined the witness in his defence. It is apparent that the delinquent also did not examine any witness in his defence. 6. No other contention has been raised before us. In view of the misconduct of financial irregularity proved against the delinquent, the punishment of dismissal from service is wholly justified. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is dismissed in limine.